MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164829510 · doi:10.1186/2045-8118-10-35

In Vivo Imaging of Lymphatic Drainage of Cerebrospinal Fluid in Mouse

2013· article· en· W2164829510 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Mathieu, Neeru Gupta, R. Loch Macdonald, Jinglu Ai, Yeni H. Yücel

Bibliographic record

VenueFluids and Barriers of the CNS · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlaucoma Research Society of CanadaGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsIn vivoCisterna magnaLymphatic systemLymphPathologyCerebrospinal fluidMedicinePreclinical imagingAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mouse models are commonly used to study central nervous system disorders, in which cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage may be disturbed. However, mouse CSF drainage into lymphatics has not been thoroughly characterized. We aimed to image this using an in vivo approach that combined quantum dot fluorescent nanoparticles with hyperspectral imaging. FINDINGS: Quantum dot 655 was injected into the CSF of the cisterna magna in seven mice and visualized by in vivo hyperspectral imaging at time points 20 and 40 min, 1, 2, and 6 h after injection. In controls (n = 4), quantum dots were applied directly onto intact dura mater covering the cisterna magna. After imaging, lymph nodes in the neck were harvested and processed post-mortem for histological analysis. After injection into the CSF, quantum dot signal was detected in vivo in submandibular lymph nodes of all mice studied as early as 20 min, but not in controls. Post-mortem gross and histological examination of lymph nodes confirmed in vivo observations. CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive in vivo hyperspectral imaging is a useful tool to study CSF lymphatic drainage and is relevant to understanding this pathway in CNS disease models.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations66
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFluids and Barriers of the CNSSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207