MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental models of neuroprotection relevant to multiple sclerosis

2007· review· en· W2169579324 on OpenAlexaff
V. Wee Yong, Fabrizio Giuliani, Mengzhou Xue, Amit Bar‐Or, Luanne M. Metz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroprotectionGlatiramer acetateMultiple sclerosisNatalizumabMinocyclineNeurodegenerationMedicineNeurotoxicityMicrogliaNeurosciencePharmacologyApoptosisImmunologyInflammationBiologyPathologyDiseaseInternal medicineToxicityBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activated T cells, particularly those of the T-helper (Th) 1 subset, have the capacity to kill neurons. Strategies for preventing such damage may include deviation of activated T cells into the Th2 subset (e.g., via use of glatiramer acetate), alteration of functional properties of Th1 cells (e.g., through use of interferon [INF]-beta or IV immunoglobulin), and inhibition of activated cell migration into the CNS (e.g., by employing INF-beta or natalizumab). Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) also causes neuron death in neurotoxicity models, and examination of medications with MMP inhibitory activity indicates that minocycline is capable of preventing such damage. Minocycline also has other properties relevant to conferring neuroprotection, such as inhibition of microglial activity and apoptosis pathways. In a small pilot study in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, minocycline treatment produced favorable outcomes in terms of gadolinium-enhancing lesions and clinical course. Further studies are needed to establish whether experimental neuroprotection strategies involving these mechanisms may be translated into preventing neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.270
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.130 · 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

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207