MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765432448 · doi:10.3389/fnint.2017.00030

Tenascins in Retinal and Optic Nerve Neurodegeneration

2017· review· en· W2765432448 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jacqueline Reinhard, Lars Roll, Andréas Faissner

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCell Adhesion Molecules Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMercator Research Center RuhrRuhr-Universität BochumBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftStem Cell Network
KeywordsNeuroscienceNeurodegenerationOptic nerveContext (archaeology)BiologyRetinalRetinaTenascinMacular degenerationExtracellular matrixTenascin CPathologyMedicineCell biologyDiseaseOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tenascins represent key constituents of the extracellular matrix (ECM) with major impact on central nervous system (CNS) development. In this regard, several studies indicate that they play a crucial role in axonal growth and guidance, synaptogenesis and boundary formation. These functions are not only important during development, but also for regeneration under several pathological conditions. Additionally, tenascin-C (Tnc) represents a key modulator of the immune system and inflammatory processes. In the present review article, we focus on the function of Tnc and tenascin-R (Tnr) in the diseased CNS, specifically after retinal and optic nerve damage and degeneration. We summarize the current view on both tenascins in diseases such as glaucoma, retinal ischemia, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or diabetic retinopathy. In this context, we discuss their expression profile, possible functional relevance, remodeling of the interacting matrisome and tenascin receptors, especially under pathological conditions.

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 score0.011

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)0.0030.002

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Integrative NeuroscienceSame topicCell Adhesion Molecules ResearchFrench-language works237,207