MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596929889 · doi:10.1177/1073858417697037

Neurotrophins and Proneurotrophins: Focus on Synaptic Activity and Plasticity in the Brain

2017· review· en· W2596929889 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Gibon, Philip Barker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroscientist · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceNeurotrophinLong-term potentiationSynaptic plasticityNeurotrophic factorsNerve growth factorMetaplasticityNeuroplasticityNeurotrophin-3Brain-derived neurotrophic factorNeurotransmissionHippocampusPsychologyNonsynaptic plasticityBiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurotrophins have been intensively studied and have multiple roles in the brain. Neurotrophins are first synthetized as proneurotrophins and then cleaved intracellularly and extracellularly. Increasing evidences demonstrate that proneurotrophins and mature neurotrophins exerts opposing role in the central nervous system. In the present review, we explore the role of nerve growth factor (NGF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), neurotrophin 3 (NT3), and neurotrophin 4 (NT4) and their respective proform in cellular processes related to learning and memory. We focused on their roles in synaptic activity and plasticity in the brain with an emphasis on long-term potentiation, long-term depression, and basal synaptic transmission in the hippocampus and the temporal lobe area. We also discuss new findings on the role of the Val66Met polymorphism on the BDNF propeptide on synaptic activity.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations116
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe NeuroscientistSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207