MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770943412 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00647

The Evidence for the Spread and Seeding Capacities of the Mutant Huntingtin Protein in in Vitro Systems and Their Therapeutic Implications

2017· review· en· W2770943412 on OpenAlexafffund
Maria Masnata, Francesca Cicchetti

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHuntingtinMutantSeedingCell biologyIn vitroBiologyNeuroscienceChemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurodegenerative disorders are not only characterized by specific patterns of cell loss but the presence and accumulation of various pathological proteins – both of which correlate with disease evolution. There is now mounting evidence to suggest that these pathological proteins present with toxic, at times prion-like, properties and can therefore seed pathology in neighboring as well remotely connected healthy neurons as they spread across the brain. What is less clear, at this stage, is how much this actually contributes to, and drives, the core pathogenic events. In this review, we present a comprehensive, up-to-date summary of the reported in vitro studies that support the spreading and seeding capacities of pathological proteins, with an emphasis on mutant huntingtin protein in the context of Huntington’s disease, although in vivo work remains to be performed to validate this theory in this particular disease. We have further reviewed these findings in light of their potential implications for the development of novel therapeutic approaches.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207