MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Myelin debris clearance during Wallerian degeneration in the goldfish visual system

2000· article· en· W4235039135 on OpenAlexaff
J. Colavincenzo, Robert L. Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWallerian degenerationMyelinOptic nerveNeuroregenerationOptic tractMicrogliaPathologyClearanceAxonAnatomyBiologyNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemChemistryMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have examined the clearance of myelin debris from the visual pathways of the goldfish during Wallerian degeneration. Both the rate and pattern of myelin disappearance from the optic nerve and tract were determined using immunohistochemistry on frozen sections, as well as plastic sections and electron microscopy. Animals with and without regenerating optic axons were examined in order to determine whether the axons play a role in myelin clearance. We found that myelin is cleared at different rates along the visual paths. Thus, virtually all myelin debris is gone in the optic tract and distal optic nerve stump by 4 weeks after surgery, while in the cranial nerve segment, myelin clearance is still incomplete at 6 weeks postoperative. These temporal and spatial patterns of myelin clearance are the same in animals with and without regenerating axons, thus indicating that growing axons do not influence this process. Finally, ultrastructural observations revealed that both astrocytes and microglia participate in phagocytosing myelin debris in the optic nerve, while in the tract, the vast majority of debris is removed by microglia alone. These data are discussed with regard to possible mechanisms controlling the differential expression of myelin clearance. J. Neurosci. Res. 59:47–62, 2000 © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207