Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glutamate receptor antagonists, although effective in preventing in vitro excitotoxic death, also block the glutamatergic signalling that is essential for normal excitatory neurotransmission and neuronal survival. This has contributed to the failure of clinical trials employing glutamate receptor antagonists as stroke therapeutics. However, recent years have seen an increased understanding of the molecular organisation of glutamate receptors in the neuronal postsynaptic density. This and a dissection of their associated intracellular signalling cascades has allowed the identification of distinct pathways responsible for excitotoxicity. It has become possible to uncouple toxic signalling cascades from glutamate receptors by targeting the interactions of membrane receptors with downstream proteins. Toxic signalling can be effectively uncoupled from glutamate receptors using targeted, cell-permeable peptides to disrupt specific protein–protein interactions. This approach does not block essential excitatory neurotransmission, but attenuates neurotoxic signals specifically and reduces stroke damage. This novel approach to blocking excitotoxic signalling in cerebral ischaemia may constitute a practical approach to stroke therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".