MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883314063 · doi:10.1002/dneu.22627

The Molecular Interplay between Axon Degeneration and Regeneration

2018· review· en· W2883314063 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Pier Girouard, Mardja Bueno, Victoria Julian, Sienna Drake, Alexandra B. Byrne, Alyson E. Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurobiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
KeywordsWallerian degenerationBiologyAxonRegeneration (biology)NeuroscienceDegeneration (medical)AnatomyCell biologyPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Neurons face a series of morphological and molecular changes following trauma and in the progression of neurodegenerative disease. In neurons capable of mounting a spontaneous regenerative response, including invertebrate neurons and mammalian neurons of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), axons regenerate from the proximal side of the injury and degenerate on the distal side. Studies of Wallerian degeneration slow (WldS/Ola) mice have revealed that a level of coordination between the processes of axon regeneration and degeneration occurs during successful repair. Here, we explore how shared cellular and molecular pathways that regulate both axon regeneration and degeneration coordinate the two distinct outcomes in the proximal and distal axon segments. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Develop Neurobiol 00: 000–000, 2018

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurobiologySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207