MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157019398 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0434

Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase as a target for small-molecule disease-modifying therapies in human neurodegenerative disorders

2004· article· en· W2157019398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark D. Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenaseDiseaseNeurodegenerationGlyceraldehydeParkinson's diseaseDehydrogenaseBiologyHuntington's diseaseMedicineBiochemistryEnzymePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent articles have highlighted numerous additional functions of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) that are independent of its well-documented glycolytic function. One of the most intriguing of these functions is as an initiator of programmed cell death cascades. This activity involves a nuclear appearance of GAPDH, a considerable proportion of which requires synthesis of new GAPDH protein and has characteristics suggesting the involvement of a novel isozyme. The relevance of such findings to human neurodegenerative conditions is emphasized by the increased nuclear GAPDH observed in postmortem samples from patients with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease and glaucoma, among others. A number of small-molecule compounds have now been identified that show anti-apoptotic activity because of their ability to interact with GAPDH and prevent its nuclear accumulation. These compounds, one of which is currently being tested in late-stage Phase II clinical trials as a disease-modifying therapy for Parkinson's disease, have potential utility in the treatment of human neurodegenerative conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207