MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320755460 · doi:10.1038/protex.2016.014

Analysis of axonal growth in organotypic neural cultures

2016· article· en· W2320755460 on OpenAlexaff
Xavier Navarro, Abel Torres‐Espín, Daniel Santos, Francisco González, Esther Udina

Bibliographic record

VenueProtocol Exchange · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFP7 HealthInstituto de Salud Carlos IIICentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas
KeywordsNeuroscienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organotypic cultures are multicellular in vitro models that preserve both cytoarchitecture and cell interactions that form the tissue, providing a closer approximation to in vivo models in comparison with dissociated cell cultures.Previous studies in our lab proposed a method of dorsal root ganglia \(DRG) and spinal cord slice \(SC) organotypic 3D cultures to study motor and sensory axonal regeneration.Although these models are useful to study how different factors and substrates affect axonal growth, manual sample analysis can be inaccurate, tiresome and high time-consuming.Therefore, we have developed a computer-aided method, using the Neurite-J plug-in, to analyze the neurite outgrowth in organotypic cultures, that can also be applied to other types of explants.This program, implemented as a plug-in for ImageJ software, markedly reduces the time needed in the manual analysis, improves the accuracy and increases the amount of information obtained from each sample.Therefore, these organotypic 3D cultures and the computed aired method are a powerful and useful tool to obtain valuable data of neurite growth in different conditions.The objective of the present work is to provide the protocol of our DRG and SC slice cultures, from the animal to the image analysis, that will allow studying neurite outgrowth in a reliable in vitro model.See gure in Figures section.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtocol ExchangeSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207