MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161517246 · doi:10.1586/ern.11.64

The promise of anti-inflammatory therapies for CNS injuries and diseases

2011· article· en· W2161517246 on OpenAlexafffund
Serge Rivest

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMicrogliaNeuroprotectionInflammationInnate immune systemNeuroscienceImmune systemMedicineRegeneration (biology)Neurotrophic factorsNeuroinflammationImmunologyBiologyInternal medicineReceptorCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It remains controversial as to whether the inflammatory response plays a beneficial or detrimental role for cerebral tissue. There is substantial evidence that molecules of the innate immune reaction can be harmful to neurons and oligodendrocytes, whereas other observations indicate that inflammation is actually beneficial to recovery after injuries. One of the beneficial consequences of the immune reaction by microglia is the release of neurotrophic factors that have essential roles in brain homeostasis, neuroprotection and repair in cases of injury. Another important action of microglia is the clearance of cell debris and toxic proteins in order to prevent their accumulation in the extracellular space. Such beneficial effects of subsets of innate immune cells have to be taken into serious consideration in the planning of clinical trials using anti-inflammatory drugs for CNS diseases, which have failed so far. This very important subject has been discussed at the 13th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Experimental Neurotherapeutics in Bethesda, MD, USA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207