MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhibiting tumor necrosis factor-α before amyloidosis prevents synaptic deficits in an Alzheimer's disease model

2016· article· en· W2490156247 on OpenAlexafffund
Chelsea Cavanagh, Yiu Chung Tse, Huy‐Binh Nguyen, Slavica Krantic, John C.S. Breitner, Rémi Quirion, Tak Pan Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Aging · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsCenter for Diagnosis and Research on Alzheimer's DiseaseMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceSynaptic plasticityGlutamate receptorNeurotransmissionGlutamatergicAmyloid (mycology)AmyloidosisAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyMedicineDiseaseInternal medicinePathologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deficits in synaptic structure and function are likely to underlie cognitive impairments in Alzheimer's disease. While synaptic deficits are commonly found in animal models of amyloidosis, it is unclear how amyloid pathology may impair synaptic functions. In some amyloid mouse models of Alzheimer's disease, however, synaptic deficits are preceded by hyperexcitability of glutamate synapses. In the amyloid transgenic mouse model TgCRND8, we therefore investigated whether early enhancement of glutamatergic transmission was responsible for development of later synaptic deficits. Hippocampi from 1-month-old TgCRND8 mice revealed increased basal transmission and plasticity of glutamate synapses that was related to increased levels of tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα). Treating these 1-month-old mice for 4 weeks with the TNFα inhibitor XPro1595 prevented synaptic deficits otherwise apparent at the age of 6 months. In this mouse model at least, reversing the hyperexcitability of glutamate synapses via TNFα blockade before the onset of amyloid plaque formation prevented later synaptic deficits.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.308
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

Citations85
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of AgingSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207