MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183351508 · doi:10.3390/cells10081884

Role of Nrf2 in Synaptic Plasticity and Memory in Alzheimer’s Disease

2021· review· en· W3183351508 on OpenAlexafffund
Don A. Davies, Aida Adlimoghaddam, Benedict C. Albensi

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer's SocietyResearch Manitoba
KeywordsOxidative stressSynaptic plasticityNeuroscienceReactive oxygen speciesTranscription factorReactive nitrogen speciesKEAP1NeurodegenerationBiologyChemistryCell biologyDiseaseMedicineInternal medicineBiochemistryGeneReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) is an important transcription factor that reduces oxidative stress. When reactive oxygen species (ROS) or reactive nitrogen species (RNS) are detected, Nrf2 translocates from the cytoplasm into the nucleus and binds to the antioxidant response element (ARE), which regulates the expression of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory genes. Nrf2 impairments are observed in the majority of neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). The classic hallmarks of AD include β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques, and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). Oxidative stress is observed early in AD and is a novel therapeutic target for the treatment of AD. The nuclear translocation of Nrf2 is impaired in AD compared to controls. Increased oxidative stress is associated with impaired memory and synaptic plasticity. The administration of Nrf2 activators reverses memory and synaptic plasticity impairments in rodent models of AD. Therefore, Nrf2 activators are a potential novel therapeutic for neurodegenerative disorders including AD.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations98
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207