MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138855099 · doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2021.105328

Near-infrared nanoscopy with carbon-based nanoparticles for the exploration of the brain extracellular space

2021· review· en· W3138855099 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chiara Paviolo, Laurent Cognet

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Disease · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLabEx BRAINEuropean CommissionAgence Nationale de la RechercheOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the physiology and pathology of the brain requires detailed knowledge of its complex structures as well as dynamic internal processes at very different scales from the macro down to the molecular dimensions. A major yet poorly described brain compartment is the brain extracellular space (ECS). Signalling molecules rapidly diffuse through the brain ECS which is complex and dynamic structure at numerous lengths and time scales. In recent years, characterization of the ECS using nanomaterials has made remarkable progress, including local analysis of nanoscopic dimensions and diffusivity as well as local chemical sensing. In particular, carbon nanomaterials combined with advanced optical technologies, biochemical and biophysical analysis, offer novel promises for understanding the ECS morphology as well as neuron connectivity and neurochemistry. In this review, we present the state-of-the-art in this quest, which mainly focuses on a type of carbon nanomaterial, single walled carbon nanotubes, as fluorescent nanoprobes to unveil the ECS features in the nanometre domain.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of DiseaseSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207