MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982307475 · doi:10.1111/jnc.14590

Towards a better understanding of <scp>AQP</scp>4′s role in astrocytic process extension

2018· letter· en· W2982307475 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Kai Long Tham, Hakima Moukhles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurochemistry · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsExtension (predicate logic)Process (computing)Cell biologyChemistryNeuroscienceComputer scienceBiologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the blood-brain-barrier (BBB), blood vessels are surrounded by the endfoot structures formed by astroglial cells. The latter are themselves part of a larger syncytial network of astrocytes connected to each other via a complex web of processes. The water-permeable channel aquaporin-4 (AQP4) is expressed at high concentrations at these endfeet, held in place by the dystrophin glycoprotein complex (DGC), a collection of proteins that act as a bridge linking AQP4 to the laminin-containing basal lamina found in between the blood vessels and the astrocytic endfeet. Although AQP4, supported by the DGC, has well-established roles in facilitating certain neurological processes, and in mediating the removal of excess water from the brain in certain disease states, relatively few studies have looked at the importance of these components in the regulation of the extension of the processes that are so characteristic of astrocytes. In this Editorial Highlight, we discuss an article by Sato et al., published in this issue of the Journal of Neurochemistry, which attempts to address this question.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0150.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurochemistrySame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207