MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343021792 · doi:10.2741/191

The good, the bad and the ugly. Macrophages/microglia with a focus on myelin repair

2011· review· en· W2343021792 on OpenAlexaff
Axinia Döring

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Bioscience-Scholar · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemyelinationMicrogliaMultiple sclerosisNeuroscienceNeuroinflammationMyelinOligodendrocyteMedicineCentral nervous systemImmunologyBiologyInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feature of most neurological disorders is demyelination, whereby myelin is lost from axons partly through stripping by macrophages/microglia. Spontaneous remyelination by oligodendrocytes that mature from oligodendrocyte precursor cells occurs following demyelination, even in the chronic inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system, multiple sclerosis. If remyelination does not occur or is prevented, then one consequence besides the loss of saltatory nerve conduction is the degeneration of axons. Thus, promoting remyelination is a desired result. In this article, we review the data that despite a reputation as "bad" factors for CNS wellbeing, including the promotion of neuroinflammation and demyelination, some aspects of macrophages/microglia activity are indeed "good", and can engender repair from the "ugly" phenomenon of demyelination. We discuss factors that help promote the benefits of macrophages/microglia activity for remyelination.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Bioscience-ScholarSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207