MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610760715 · doi:10.1002/jnr.24075

Astrocyte dysfunction in Alzheimer disease

2017· review· en· W2610760715 on OpenAlexafffund
Crystal Acosta, H. D. Anderson, Christopher M. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersResearch Manitoba
KeywordsExcitotoxicityAstrocyteGlutamate receptorNeuroscienceNeurotransmissionBiologySynaptic plasticityIntracellularNMDA receptorAlzheimer's diseaseExtracellularCell biologyCentral nervous systemReceptorBiochemistryDiseaseMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Astrocytes are glial cells that are distributed throughout the central nervous system in an arrangement optimal for chemical and physical interaction with neuronal synapses and brain blood supply vessels. Neurotransmission modulates astrocytic excitability by activating an array of cell surface receptors and transporter proteins, resulting in dynamic changes in intracellular Ca 2+ or Na + . Ionic and electrogenic astrocytic changes, in turn, drive vital cell nonautonomous effects supporting brain function, including regulation of synaptic activity, neuronal metabolism, and regional blood supply. Alzheimer disease (AD) is associated with aberrant oligomeric amyloid β generation, which leads to extensive proliferation of astrocytes with a reactive phenotype and abnormal regulation of these processes. Astrocytic morphology, Ca 2+ responses, extracellular K + removal, glutamate transport, amyloid clearance, and energy metabolism are all affected in AD, resulting in a deleterious set of effects that includes glutamate excitotoxicity, impaired synaptic plasticity, reduced carbon delivery to neurons for oxidative phosphorylation, and dysregulated linkages between neuronal energy demand and regional blood supply. This review summarizes how astrocytes are affected in AD and describes how these changes are likely to influence brain function. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.448
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.092 · 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

Citations247
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207