MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reduction in Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in the Superior Temporal, Hippocampal, and Brainstem Regions in Alzheimer’s Disease

2014· article· en· W2313199285 on OpenAlexaff
John Provias, Brian Jeynes

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Neurovascular Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVascular endothelial growth factorBrainstemHippocampusPathogenesisHippocampal formationSenile plaquesAlzheimer's diseasePathologyAngiogenesisAmyloid betaInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineDiseaseVEGF receptors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteen Alzheimer (AD) and fifteen normative (NM) age-matched autopsy brains were analyzed in superior temporal cortex, hippocampal and brainstem samples. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) positive capillaries were quantitatively analyzed in all three sites in the 30 cases. Amyloid β42 senile plaques and VEGF positive capillaries were counted and statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis and the non-parametric Spearman's test. There is a significantly different expression of capillary VEGF between normative and Alzheimer brains. Within Alzheimer's superior temporal, hippocampus and brainstem sites there was reduced VEGF expression, with the P value being less than 0.05 in all three sites (superior temporal less than 0.035, hippocampus less than 0.001, brainstem less than 0.006). As VEGF is an important endothelial growth factor involved in vascular remodeling, angiogenesis, and endothelial/blood brain barrier maintenance, its reduced expression in Alzheimer's disease is evidence for altered capillary function in this disease, which may be contributory to its pathogenesis by altering beta amyloid handling and efflux.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Neurovascular ResearchSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207