MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

An immunohistochemical study on the arrangement of sympathetic fibers within the human common fibular nerve

2011· article· en· W3175197151 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Tompkins, Jamie Melling, J. Kevin Shoemaker, Timothy D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSympathetic nervous systemTyrosine hydroxylaseMedicineImmunohistochemistrySympathetic innervationSympathectomyNerve fiberNeuroanatomyAnatomyAutonomic nervous systemPathologyInternal medicineBlood pressureHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiologists often use muscle sympathetic neural activity (MSNA) in the common fibular nerve (CFN) to measure sympathetic drive within lower limb peripheral nerves. It is understood that significant alterations in MSNA activity occur with age, diabetes, and vascular disease. Little is known, however, about sympathetic fiber distribution in the lower limb nerves of humans. In order to describe the general sympathetic arrangement in the CFN, immunohistochemical techniques were used on 5μm transverse sections of formaldehyde‐fixed CFN taken from human cadavers within 24 hours of death. By staining for tyrosine hydroxylase the arrangement and number of sympathetic fibers can be determined. From microneurographic records it is hypothesized that the sympathetic fibers are arranged in randomly dispersed bundles, each of approximately 10–40 fibers. Results from this study will quantify autonomic fiber distribution in the CFN. This will better enable physiologists to relate autonomic neuroanatomy to microneurographic outcomes in the CFN. Grant Funding Source : Departmental

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→