Anti-Chondroitin Sulfate Proteoglycan Strategies in Spinal Cord Injury: Temporal and Spatial Considerations Explain the Balance between Neuroplasticity and Neuroprotection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loss of function after spinal cord injury (SCI) results from the primary injury that causes interruption of axonal tracts, neuronal and glial cell death, and the secondary injury in which inflammation drives lesion expansion, and further loss of gray and white matter. There are two main therapeutic strategies for the treatment of SCI: pro-reparative sprouting strategies that aim to promote functional recovery through enhancing the plasticity of spared axons and neuroprotection/anti-inflammatory strategies that aim to decrease secondary injury. Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) are matrix molecules that are major constituents of the glial scar at the SCI epicenter and of perineuronal nets found throughout the central nervous system. In this review, we summarize the wealth of literature describing the application of anti-CSPG strategies that target either CSPG synthesis or degradation or signalling after SCI. The weight of the evidence suggests that the balance between neuroprotection and neuroplasticity achieved by any one anti-CSPG strategy depends on the when and the where of its application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".