Glucocorticoids: Protectors of the Brain during Innate Immune Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The innate immune response is a coordinated set of reactions involving cells of myeloid lineage and a network of signaling molecules. Such a response takes place in the CNS during trauma, stroke, spinal cord injury, and neurodegenerative diseases, suggesting that macrophages/microglia are the cells that perpetuate the progressive neuronal damage. However, there is accumulating evidence that these cells and their secreted proinflammatory molecules have more beneficial effects than detrimental consequences for the neuronal elements. Indeed, a timely controlled innate immune response may limit toxicity in swiftly eliminating foreign materials and debris that are known to interfere with recovery and regeneration. Each step of the immune cascade is under the tight control of stimulatory and inhibitory signals. Glucocorticoids (GCs) act as the critical negative feedback on all myeloid cells, including those present within the brain parenchyma. Because too little is like too much, both an inappropriate feedback of GCs on microglia and high circulating GC levels in stressed individuals have been associated with deleterious consequences for the brain. In this review, the authors discuss both sides of the story with a particular emphasis on the neuro-protective role of endogenous GCs during immune challenges and the problems in determining whether GCs can be a good therapy for the treatment of neuropathological 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".