MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199368369 · doi:10.33137/juls.v15i1.37312

Role of Antioxidant Vitamins in Neurogenesis

2021· article· en· W3199368369 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shreyashish Roy‐Chowdhury, Daivat Bhavsar, Jasrita Singh, A. A. Mardon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Undergraduate Life Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurogenesisAntioxidantVitamin EVitaminCell growthBiologyNeuroscienceCell biologyEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurogenesis is vital in the preservation of cognition. Previous studies have reported antioxidant vitamins as a key regulatory factor in neurogenesis. However, current research investigating their role is inconclusive due to the limited number of studies that have been conducted and conflicting results. This review evaluates the scientific evidence behind the potential roles of antioxidant vitamins in neurogenesis. Observations concerned with the mechanistic and functional aspects of how antioxidant vitamins modulate neurogenesis are both assessed. Vitamin A is evidently involved in cell cycle regulation and cell proliferation; vitamin C reportedly promotes neural differentiation and maturation while inhibiting neurite outgrowth; vitamin E is identified to inhibit cell proliferation while improving cell viability. Varying antioxidant vitamin concentrations have been implicated in facilitating cognition in terms of attention, memory, language, and executive function. Moreover, this review suggests a threshold antioxidant vitamin concentration that should be maintained to promote optimal levels of adult neurogenesis.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Undergraduate Life SciencesSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207