Comparison of regenerative neurogenesis in response to CNS injury between adult zebrafish and mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The difference between adult zebrafish and mice in their regenerative capacity following central nervous system (CNS) injury is influenced by the permissiveness of the brain microenvironment aside from the intrinsic neurogenic potential of the cell population. In adult zebrafish, glia cells largely retain their radial characteristics and neurogenic capacity, and the zebrafish brain shows full recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI) as well as spinal cord injury (SCI). Conversely, in mice, radial glia (RG) have largely differentiated into astrocytes. Excluding certain brain regions, following TBI, reactive astrocytes that show the potential to become neural stem cells (NSCs) in vitro remain strictly non-neurogenic in vivo due to the presence of inhibitory factors in the microenvironment. Combined with prolonged inflammation and gliosis, injury to the CNS eventually results in formation of a glial scar further impeding regeneration. However in rodents, suppression of neurogenesis may be a protection mechanism against possible detrimental side-effects of neurogenesis in the long term.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".