Enhancing axonal myelination in seniors: A review exploring the potential impact cannabis has on myelination in the aged brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumption of cannabis is on the rise as public opinion trends toward acceptance and its consequent legalization. Specifically, the senior population is one of the demographics increasing their use of cannabis the fastest, but research aimed at understanding cannabis' impact on the aged brain is still scarce. Aging is characterized by many brain changes that slowly alter cognitive ability. One process that is greatly impacted during aging is axonal myelination. The slow degradation and loss of myelin (i.e., demyelination) in the brain with age has been shown to associate with cognitive decline and, furthermore, is a common characteristic of numerous neurological diseases experienced in aging. It is currently not known what causes this age-dependent degradation, but it is likely due to numerous confounding factors (i.e., heightened inflammation, reduced blood flow, cellular senescence) that impact the many cells responsible for maintaining overall homeostasis and myelin integrity. Importantly, animal studies using non-human primates and rodents have also revealed demyelination with age, providing a reliable model for researchers to try and understand the cellular mechanisms at play. In rodents, cannabis was recently shown to modulate the myelination process. Furthermore, studies looking at the direct modulatory impact cannabis has on microglia, astrocytes and oligodendrocyte lineage cells hint at potential mechanisms to prevent some of the more damaging activities performed by these cells that contribute to demyelination in aging. However, research focusing on how cannabis impacts myelination in the aged brain is lacking. Therefore, this review will explore the evidence thus far accumulated to show how cannabis impacts myelination and will extrapolate what this knowledge may mean for the aged brain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".