MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503802701 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2016.00292

Fungal Infection in the Brain: What We Learned from Intravital Imaging

2016· review· en· W2503802701 on OpenAlexaff
Meiqing Shi, Christopher H. Mody

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Infections and Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMeningoencephalitisImmune systemBiologyParenchymaBlood–brain barrierCryptococcus neoformansIntravital microscopyNaegleria fowleriImmunologyPathologyNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemMedicineMicrobiologyIn vivo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 1.2 billion people suffer from fungal diseases worldwide. Arguably, the most serious manifestation occurs when pathogenic fungi infect the brain, often causing fatal meningoencephalitis. For most fungi, infection occurs via the vascular route. The organism must first be arrested in the brain microvasculature and transmigrate into the brain parenchyma across the blood-brain barrier. As a result, host immune cells are recruited into the brain to contain the fungi. However, it remains poorly understood how fungi traffic to, and migrate into the brain and how immune cells interact with invading fungi in the brain. A new era of intravital fluorescence microscopy has begun to provide insights. We are able to employ this powerful approach to study dynamic interactions of disseminating fungi with brain endothelial cells as well as resident and recruited immune cells during the brain infection. In this review, with a focus on Cryptococcus neoformans, we will provide an overview of the application of intravital imaging in fungal infections in the brain, discuss recent findings and speculate on possible future research directions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicFungal Infections and StudiesFrench-language works237,207