Canadian Association of Neurosciences Review: Prion Protein and Prion Diseases: The Good and the Bad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1700's a strange new disease affecting sheep was recognized in Europe. The disease later became known as "Scrapie" and was the first of a family of similar diseases affecting a number of species that are now known as the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs). The appearance of a new disease in humans linked to the consumption of meat products from infected cattle has stimulated widespread public concern and scientific interest in the prion protein and related diseases. Nearly 300 years after the first report, these diseases still merit the descriptor "strange". This family of diseases is characterized by a unique profile of histological changes, can be transmitted as inherited or acquired diseases, as well as apparent sporadic spontaneous generation of the disease. These diseases are believed by many, to be caused by a unique protein only infectious agent. The "prion protein" (PrPC), a term first coined by Stanley Prusiner in 1982 is crucial to the development of these diseases, apparently by acting as a substrate for an abnormal disease associated form. However, aside from being critical to the pathogenesis of the disease, the function of PrPC, which is expressed in all mammals, has defied definitive description. Several roles have been proposed on the basis of in vitro studies, however, thus far, in vivo confirmation has not been forthcoming. The biological features of PrPC also seem to be unusual. Numerous mouse models have been generated in an attempt to understand the pathogenesis of these diseases. This review summarizes the current state of histological features, the etiologic agent, the normal metabolism and the function of the prion protein, as well as the limitations of the mouse 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.055 |
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".