MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914406467 · doi:10.1111/jnc.14674

Inflammatory mechanisms in neurodegeneration

2019· review· en· W2914406467 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael R. Nichols, Marie‐Kim St‐Pierre, Ann‐Christin Wendeln, Nyasha J. Makoni, Lisa K. Gouwens, Evan Garrad, Mona Sohrabi, Jonas J. Neher, Marie‐Ève Tremblay, Colin K. Combs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurochemistry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute on AgingFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeurodegenerationNeuroscienceMedicineBiologyPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review discusses the profound connection between microglia, neuroinflammation, and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Theories have been postulated, tested, and modified over several decades. The findings have further bolstered the belief that microglia-mediated inflammation is both a product and contributor to AD pathology and progression. Distinct microglia phenotypes and their function, microglial recognition and response to protein aggregates in AD, and the overall role of microglia in AD are areas that have received considerable research attention and yielded significant results. The following article provides a historical perspective of microglia, a detailed discussion of multiple microglia phenotypes including dark microglia, and a review of a number of areas where microglia intersect with AD and other pathological neurological processes. The overall breadth of important discoveries achieved in these areas significantly strengthens the hypothesis that neuroinflammation plays a key role in AD. Future determination of the exact mechanisms by which microglia respond to, and attempt to mitigate, protein aggregation in AD may lead to new therapeutic strategies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations122
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurochemistrySame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207