MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2769350567 · doi:10.1039/9781788012539-00105

Identification of MicroRNAs as Targets for Treatment of Ischemic Stroke

2017· book-chapter· en· W2769350567 on OpenAlexaff
Creed M. Stary, Josh D. Bell, Jang Eun Cho, Rona G. Giffard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmicroRNAGene silencingTranslation (biology)Gene expressionBioinformaticsBiologyStroke (engine)GeneNeuroscienceMessenger RNAMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic stroke remains a leading cause of death and disability with few treatment options. MicroRNAs (miRs) are short, non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression. They have important potential applications as biomarkers for stroke severity and outcome, as well as presenting unique possibilities for interventions to minimize injury and improve recovery and outcome following stroke. MiRs function by binding messenger RNAs (mRNA) and silencing translation of target genes. Endogenous miR expression levels change in response to stress, and they can be altered by application of exogenous nucleotides—miR mimics—to increase or inhibitors to decrease levels of specific miRs. By virtue of their relatively short binding sequences, a single miR can simultaneously modulate numerous related gene targets. As miR expression can be cell-type specific, miRs can also be used to target specific brain cell types, such as microglia and astrocytes, which helps determine neuronal cell fate following stress. MiR-based therapeutics may therefore provide a novel approach to the development of effective therapeutics for ischemic stroke.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicroRNA in disease regulation→French-language works237,207→