MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415485725

Pyruvate blocks blood-brain barrier disruption, lymphocyte infiltration and immune response in excitotoxic brain injury.

2016· article· en· W2415485725 on OpenAlexaff
Jae Kyu Ryu, James G. McLarnon

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuinolinic acidImmune systemStriatumInfiltration (HVAC)Blood–brain barrierAntibodyLymphocyteChemistryBiologyImmunologyMedicineEndocrinologyCentral nervous systemBiochemistryDopamine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of pyruvate, the end metabolite of glycolysis, on blood-brain barrier (BBB) impairment and immune reactivity were examined in the quinolinic acid (QA)-injected rat striatum. Extensive disruption of BBB was observed at 7 d post QA-injection as demonstrated by increased immunohistochemical staining using antibody against immunoglobulin G (IgG). Animals receiving pyruvate administration (500 mg/kg) with QA-injection exhibited reduced lgG immunoreactivity (by 45%) relative to QA alone. QA intrastriatal injection also resulted in marked increases in the number of infiltrating T-lymphocytes (by 70-fold) and expression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC-class II) (by 45-fold) relative to unlesioned control. Treatment with pyruvate significantly reduced infiltration of T-cells (by 68%) and MHC class II expression (by 48%) induced by QA. These results indicate that QA injection into rat striatum leads to impairment in BBB function with pyruvate administration reducing immune response and BBB leakiness in excitotoxic injury.

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207