MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immune System Induction of Nerve Growth Factor in an Animal Model of Multiple Sclerosis: Implications in Re-Myelination and Myelin RepairATION AND MYELIN REPAIR

2015· article· en· W2258997495 on OpenAlexaff
Crystal Acosta, Claudia Cortés, Khaled Al-Taweel, Heather MacPhee, Britta Hoogervorst, Harpreet Bhullar, Brain MacNeil, Mahmoud Torabi, Frank J. Burczynski, Michael Namaka

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS & Neurological Disorders - Drug Targets · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMyelinNeuroscienceMyelin sheathImmune systemNerve growth factorMedicineBiologyImmunologyCentral nervous systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nerve growth factor (NGF) expression is augmented during neuroinflammation. However, its function in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG) and spinal cord (SC) during experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the inflammatory model of Multiple Sclerosis, is indistinct. Thus, the role of antigenically induced NGF in Lewis rats under a state of EAE was considered. NGF mRNA and protein expression were highly increased in DRG and SC tissues in animals with EAE. Between 18 and 24 days post induction (dpi), NGF mRNA and protein were elevated in the DRG, correlating with neurological recovery. In the SC, an increase in NGF protein at 12 dpi was, in contrast, preceded by neurological recovery. NGF mRNA expression became elevated in the SC at 15 dpi at the onset of neurological improvement and amelioration of EAE. This study revealed that antigenic induction of the 25 kDa pro-NGF isoform is associated with the disease course of EAE. Our findings suggest the induction of NGF represents an adaptive response against immune-mediated neuroinflammation in the DRG and SC that likely contributes to the EAE attenuation.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS & Neurological Disorders - Drug TargetsSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207