MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235020170 · doi:10.1159/000438701

Advances in Neurotrophic Factor and Cell-Based Therapies for Parkinson's Disease: A Mini-Review

2015· review· en· W2235020170 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Staudt, Andrea R. Di Sebastiano, Hu Xu, Mandar Jog, Susanne Schmid, Paula J. Foster, Matthew O. Hebb

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurotrophic factorsMedicineParkinson's diseaseTransplantationDiseaseNeuroscienceBioinformaticsPsychologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) affects an estimated 7-10 million people worldwide and remains without definitive or disease-modifying treatment. There have been many recent developments in cell-based therapy (CBT) to replace lost circuitry and provide chronic biological sources of therapeutic agents to the PD-affected brain. Early neural transplantation studies underscored the challenges of immune compatibility, graft integration and the need for renewable, autologous graft sources. Neurotrophic factors (NTFs) offer a potential class of cytoprotective pharmacotherapeutics that may complement dopamine (DA) replacement and CBT strategies in PD. Chronic NTF delivery may be an integral goal of CBT, with grafts consisting of autologous drug-producing (e.g., DA, NTF) cells that are capable of integration and function in the host brain. In this mini-review, we outline the past experience and recent advances in NTF technology and CBT as promising and integrated approaches for the treatment of PD.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontologySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207