MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroinflammation: The Overview of Current and Prospective Therapies

2017· review· en· W2581300366 on OpenAlexaff
Ivana Bjelobaba, Danijela Savić, Irena Lavrnja

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroinflammationMultiple sclerosisMedicineAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisNeuroscienceNeuroprotectionDiseaseImmunologyPathologyPsychologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persistent neuroinflammation is now recognized as a chief pathological component of practically all neurodegenerative diseases. Neuroinflammation in the central nervous system (CNS), is accompanied with immune responses of glial cells. Glial cells respond to pathological stimuli through antigen presentation, and cytokine and chemokine signaling. Therefore, limiting CNS inflammation represents prospective therapeutic approach in diseases like Alzheimer's, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's, ischemia, various psychiatric disorders and Multiple sclerosis (MS). As a complex disease, MS is characterized by neuroinflamation, demyelination and sequential axonal loss. Due to unknown etiology and the heterogeneous presentation of the disease, MS is hard to treat and the search for potential therapeutics is wide and meticulous. However, finding a proper antineuroinflammatory drug may bring an advance in selecting novel treatment regimens of ample of neurodegenerative diseases and neurological disorders. The present review gives the overview of the existing and potential therapies in MS, aimed to modulate neuroinflammation and ensure neuroprotection.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.505
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.042 · 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

Citations125
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207