MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319017449 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2016.03.028

Evidence for an Age-Dependent Decline in Axon Regeneration in the Adult Mammalian Central Nervous System

2016· article· en· W2319017449 on OpenAlexafffund
Cédric G. Geoffroy, Brett J. Hilton, Wolfram Tetzlaff, Binhai Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAxotomyAxonRegeneration (biology)NeuroscienceBiologyCentral nervous systemSomaNeuronPTENSpinal cord injuryNeurogenesisSpinal cordPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayCell biologySignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How aging impacts axon regeneration after CNS injury is not known. We assessed the impact of age on axon regeneration induced by Pten deletion in corticospinal and rubrospinal neurons, two neuronal populations with distinct innate regenerative abilities. As in young mice, Pten deletion in older mice remains effective in preventing axotomy-induced decline in neuron-intrinsic growth state, as assessed by mTOR activity, neuronal soma size, and axonal growth proximal to a spinal cord injury. However, axonal regeneration distal to injury is greatly diminished, accompanied by increased expression of astroglial and inflammatory markers at the injury site. Thus, the mammalian CNS undergoes an age-dependent decline in axon regeneration, as revealed when neuron-intrinsic growth state is elevated. These results have important implications for developing strategies to promote axonal repair after CNS injuries or diseases, which increasingly affect middle-aged to aging populations.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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

Citations164
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207