MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017363622 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03702

Glymphatic clearance of simulated silicon dispersion in mouse brain analyzed by laser induced breakdown spectroscopy

2020· article· en· W3017363622 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Shehzad Khan, Rachit Kumar, Sinai H. C. Manno, Irfan Ahmed, Alan Wing Lun Law, Raúl Rodríguez‐Cruces, Victor Ma, William C. Cho, Shuk Han Cheng, Condon Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsSiliconMaterials scienceGlymphatic systemMicrogliaBiomedical engineeringPathologyChemistryMedicineInflammationImmunologyOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon-based devices, such as neural probes, are increasingly used as electrodes for receiving electrical signals from neural tissue. Neural probes used chronically have been known to induce inflammation and elicit an immune response. The current study detects and evaluates silicon dispersion from a concentrated source in the mouse brain using laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. Element lines for Si (I) were found at the injection site at approximately 288 nm at 3hr post-implantation, even with tissue perfusion, indicating possible infusion into neural tissue. At 24hr and 1-week post-implantation, no silicon lines were found, indicating clearance. An isolated immune response was found by CD68 macrophage response at 24hr post injection. Future studies should measure chronic silicon exposure to determine if the inflammatory response is proportional to silicon administration. The present type of protocol, coupling laser induced breakdown spectroscopy, neuroimaging, histology, immunohistochemistry, and determination of clearance could be used to investigate the glymphatic system and different tissue states such as in disease (e.g. Alzheimer's).

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 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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207