MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592057071 · doi:10.5430/jbgc.v7n1p8

3D printing of beta-amyloid protein deposits along capillary walls

2017· article· en· W2592057071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
China Blue, Seth S. Horowitz, Peter J. Snyder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSenile plaquesAmyloid (mycology)PathologyNeuropilDementiaChemistryMedicineAlzheimer's diseaseAnatomyNeurosciencePsychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abnormally high levels of neocortical beta-amyloid protein (A+) reflect Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in persons with clinical evidence of dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The abnormal aggregation of beta-amyloid protein in the brain neuropil may lead to either diffuse plaques and/or concentrated neuritic plaques, with the latter form of deposits often present in the vicinity of the cerebral microvasculature. The A protein, with its crystalline molecular structure, infiltrates the vessel walls and compromises the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The physical basis for this was elegantly shown by Meyer and colleagues, in a 2008 publication showing two-dimensional (2D) confocal laser scanning microscopic imaging of vascular A protein deposits in APP23 transgenic mice. These investigators showed accumulations of “tuft-life structures”, also referred to as “pompons” with protruding spikes on – and embedded within – microvessels. These pompons of beta-amyloid protein “consist of fibrillar structures, [and] can encircle and constrict capillaries, and are often associated with distortion of capillaries”.We were struck by both the heuristic value of the imaging of Meyer and colleagues, in explaining the root cause of both the amyloid-related alterations in the vascular bed, and depicting minute protein deposits that are both geometrically complex, seemingly delicate and fragile, and yet tenacious in their embedding within small vessel walls. We re-created these images with standard 3D printing technology (extruded plastic) for both educational/teaching and artistic purposes.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Graphics and ComputingSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207