MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311681238 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15303

Cannabinoid CB1 Receptor Expression and Localization in the Dorsal Horn of Male and Female Human and Rat Spinal Cord Tissue

2022· dissertation· en· W4311681238 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Parnell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCannabinoid receptorCannabinoidNeuropilImmunostainingSpinal cordNeuNBiologyNeuroscienceEndocannabinoid systemImmunohistochemistryPathologyReceptorAnatomyInternal medicineCentral nervous systemMedicineAgonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that cannabis, a potent cannabinoid, has potential analgesic properties.However, there is a gap in the literature with respect to cannabinoid receptor expression and localization in the spinal cord across both sex and species, with almost nothing known in humans.We aimed to investigate the differential expression of the cannabinoid type 1 receptor (CB1R) across dorsal horn laminae and cell populations in male and female adult rats and humans.Human spinal cord samples were collected from organ donors 1-3 hours post-aortic cross-clamping.To investigate and quantify CB1R expression in the spinal dorsal horn, we used an immunohistochemistry approach along with confocal imaging.We successfully refined and applied staining procedures from rat to human fixed tissue.Qualitatively, we observed increased neuropil immunostaining in the superficial dorsal horn (SDH) of rats and humans, and somatic staining in the deeper laminae.Quantitative results indicated a significant increase in CB1R immunoreactivity in the SDH when compared to the deeper dorsal horn laminae of both rat and humans.This significant difference in receptor expression across dorsal horn laminae was conserved across sex in both species.The preferential expression of CB1Rs in the SDH across both sex and species has significant implications for both the understanding and treatment of pain.internal examiner for your time and helpful critiques of my thesis.Thank you to microscope specialist Dr. Chloë van Oostende-Triplet and the rest of the team at the Cell Biology and Image Acquisition (CBIA) Core at the University of Ottawa for their expertise.Thank you to the friends I met amidst a global pandemic, who supported me throughout this journey, and to my family for their constant love and support.And finally, this project couldn't be possible without the selfless donation from our organ donors.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→