MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907742324

The Role of Toll-like Receptor 4 in the Pathogenesis of Experimental Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

2016· dissertation· en· W2907742324 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shakira Brathwaite

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsPathogenesisSubarachnoid hemorrhageMedicineToll-like receptorNeuroscienceReceptorImmunologyAnesthesiaPsychologyInternal medicineInnate immune system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) accounts for 5-7% of strokes worldwide and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. In addition to brain damage from the initial hemorrhagic events, secondary complications are observed in patients as well as animal models. Inflammation is being increasingly implicated in the presentation of secondary complications of SAH. This study was designed to investigate the contributions of Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) to secondary pathologies after SAH in mice. SAH was induced in TLR4- deficient animals, animals treated with a pharmacological inhibitor of TLR4 (TAK-242) and their respective controls; the degree of behavioral disruption, histological vasospasm, neuronal damage, reactive gliosis and demyelination was assessed. Disruption of TLR4 signaling was found to improve behavioral scores, and reduce neuronal damage and reactive gliosis, but did not affect histological vasospasm and demyelination after SAH. These data suggests that inhibition of TLR4 signaling could be a promising new therapeutic strategy for SAH patients

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207