MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210288602 · doi:10.1002/glia.24111

Monocytes in central nervous system remyelination

2021· review· en· W3210288602 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lindsey H. Forbes, Véronique E. Miron

Bibliographic record

VenueGlia · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaMultiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsRemyelinationMicrogliaNeuroscienceBiologyMultiple sclerosisCentral nervous systemMonocyteMacrophageImmunologyInflammationMyelinIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remyelination failure with aging and progression of neurodegenerative disorders contributes to axonal dysfunction, highlighting the importance of understanding the mechanisms underpinning this process to develop regenerative therapies. Central nervous system (CNS) macrophages, encompassing both resident microglia and blood monocyte-derived cells, play a crucial role in driving successful remyelination. Although there has been a focus on the critical roles of microglia in remyelination, the specific contribution of monocyte-derived macrophages is still not fully understood. Until recently, the lack of tools enabling distinction between CNS macrophage populations has hindered our understanding of monocyte influence on remyelination. Recent advances have allowed for identification and characterization of monocyte populations in health, aging and in neurodegenerative conditions like multiple sclerosis, indicating heterogeneity of monocyte subsets impacted by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Here, we discuss the new tools enabling distinction between macrophage populations and advancements in understanding the importance of monocytes in remyelination, and reflect on the potential for therapeutic targeting of monocytes to promote remyelination.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGliaSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207