Dissecting glial scar formation by spatial point pattern and topological data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glial scar formation represents a fundamental response to central nervous system (CNS) injury. It is mainly characterized by a well-defined spatial rearrangement of reactive astrocytes and microglia. The mechanisms underlying glial scar formation have been extensively studied, yet quantitative descriptors of the spatial arrangement of reactive glial cells remain limited. Here, we present a novel approach using point pattern analysis (PPA) and topological data analysis (TDA) to quantify spatial patterns of reactive glial cells after experimental ischemic stroke in mice. We provide open and reproducible tools using R and Julia to quantify spatial intensity, cell covariance and conditional distribution, cell-to-cell interactions, and short/long-scale arrangement, which collectively disentangle the arrangement patterns of the glial scar. This approach unravels a substantial divergence in the distribution of reactive astrocytes and microglia after injury that conventional analysis methods cannot fully characterize. PPA and TDA are valuable tools for studying the complex spatial arrangement of reactive glia and other nervous cells following CNS injuries and have potential applications for evaluating glial-targeted restorative therapies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".