MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biology and Models of the Blood–Brain Barrier

2021· review· en· W3181285032 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cynthia Hajal, Baptiste Le Roi, Roger D. Kamm, Ben M. Maoz

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Biomedical Engineering · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport SystemsNational Science FoundationLudwig Center at HarvardNational Cancer InstituteAzrieli FoundationTel Aviv University
KeywordsBlood–brain barrierNeuroscienceBiologyTranslation (biology)Brain diseaseComputer scienceDiseaseMedicinePathologyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is one of the most selective endothelial barriers. An understanding of its cellular, morphological, and biological properties in health and disease is necessary to develop therapeutics that can be transported from blood to brain. In vivo models have provided some insight into these features and transport mechanisms adopted at the brain, yet they have failed as a robust platform for the translation of results into clinical outcomes. In this article, we provide a general overview of major BBB features and describe various models that have been designed to replicate this barrier and neurological pathologies linked with the BBB. We propose several key parameters and design characteristics that can be employed to engineer physiologically relevant models of the blood-brain interface and highlight the need for a consensus in the measurement of fundamental properties of this barrier.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations134
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Biomedical EngineeringSame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207