MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590110434 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00079

Chaperone Proteins in the Central Nervous System and Peripheral Nervous System after Nerve Injury

2017· review· en· W2590110434 on OpenAlexafffund
Shalina S. Ousman, Ariana Frederick, Erin-Mai F. Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of CalgaryUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsRemyelinationPeripheral nervous systemCentral nervous systemNeuroscienceAxonNeuroregenerationDownregulation and upregulationNervous systemRegeneration (biology)Chaperone (clinical)BiologyNerve injuryMedicineCell biologyPathologyMyelin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injury to axons of the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS) is accompanied by the upregulation and downregulation of numerous molecules that are involved in mediating nerve repair, or in augmentation of the original damage. Promoting the functions of beneficial factors while reducing the properties of injurious agents determines whether regeneration and functional recovery ensues. A number of chaperone proteins display reduced or increased expression following CNS and PNS damage (crush, transection, contusion) where their roles have generally been found to be protective. For example, chaperones are involved in mediating survival of damaged neurons, promoting axon regeneration and remyelination and, improving behavioral outcomes. We review here the various chaperone proteins that are involved after nervous system axonal damage, the functions that they impact in the CNS and PNS, and the possible mechanisms by which they act.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207