MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778306296 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-124436

Clinical Perspectives of Lithium’s Neuroprotective Effect

2017· review· en· W2778306296 on OpenAlex
Janusz Rybakowski, Aleksandra Suwalska, Tomáš Hájek

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacopsychiatry · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroprotectionLithium (medication)MedicineNeurosciencePsychologyPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence for a neuroprotective effect of lithium has accumulated over the last 2 decades, and this phenomenon has been regarded as an important mechanism of lithium action in mood disorders. It has been reflected by an increase in cerebral gray matter volume in lithium-treated subjects and by the favorable influence of lithium on cognitive functions. A neuroprotective effect of lithium also makes this ion a possible candidate for use as a therapeutic drug in neurology, especially in neurodegenerative disorders. In this paper, neurochemical mechanisms of neuroprotective action of lithium will be characterized. A possible association between the effect of lithium on brain structures reflected in neuroimaging studies, as well as on cognitive functions, and its neuroprotective action, will be considered. Data from experimental, epidemiological, and clinical studies have also pointed to an antidementia effect of lithium, bringing about some promise of using lithium in the treatment of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. The results of attempts of employing lithium in other neurodegenerative disorders will also be discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.390 · 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