MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154019378 · doi:10.3109/00207454.2013.833509

Histological quantification of brain tissue inflammatory cell infiltration after focal cerebral infarction: a systematic review

2013· review· en· W2154019378 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Natanya S. Russek, Matthew B. Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)NeuroprotectionInflammationInfiltration (HVAC)Brain tissueCerebral infarctionPathologyInfarctionInflammatory responseIschemiaInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and current treatments to limit tissue injury and improve recovery are limited. Cerebral infarction is accompanied by intense brain tissue inflammation involving many inflammatory cell types that may cause both negative and positive effects on outcomes. Many potential neuroprotective and neurorestorative treatments may affect, and be affected by, this inflammatory cell infiltration, so that accurate quantification of this tissue response is needed. We performed a systematic review of histological methods to quantify brain tissue inflammatory cell infiltration after cerebral infarction. We found reports of multiple techniques to quantify different inflammatory cell types. We found no direct comparison studies and conclude that more research is needed to optimize the assessment of this important stroke outcome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207