MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320928748 · doi:10.58739/jcbs/v05i2.11

Pathophysiology of Brain Aging: A Brief Account on Molecular Changes

2015· article· en· W4320928748 on OpenAlexaff
Venkateshappa Chikkanarayanappa, Harish Gangadharappa

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurodegenerationCuriosityNeuroscienceDiseaseMechanism (biology)PopulationAtrophyBrain agingPsychologyGerontologyMedicinePhysiologyPathologyPhilosophyEpistemologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being the second most populous country in the world, India houses a large geriatric population. Increasing geriatric population with increasing age related ailments has necessitated research in the field of Aging. Thus, the study of Biological mechanism of aging is not merely a topic of scientific curiosity, but also a crucial area of research in the current scenario. “Aging” is one of the most fascinating topics that have interested philosophers and scientists for centuries. Over the years, the researchers have postulated several theories to explain the aging phenomena. Denham Harman postulated that aging is a deleterious, progressive, intrinsic, and universal process, which is a progressive accumulation of alteration as a function of time associated with or responsible for the everincreasing susceptibility to age-related disease and death.[1] Aging is associated with (a) progressive loss of physiologic functions; (b) atrophy to most of the organs; (c) increased susceptibility to infections, trauma and neurodegeneration (d) susceptibility to malignancy, and (e) decreased gaseous exchange during respiration.[2]

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCESSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207