MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389831653 · doi:10.4103/1673-5374.389630

Resident immune responses to spinal cord injury: role of astrocytes and microglia

2023· article· en· W4389831653 on OpenAlexaff
Sydney Brockie, Cindy Zhou, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Regeneration Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceMicrogliaSpinal cord injuryMedicineSpinal cordLesionPopulationBiologyImmunologyPathologyInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord injury can be traumatic or non-traumatic in origin, with the latter rising in incidence and prevalence with the aging demographics of our society. Moreover, as the global population ages, individuals with co-existent degenerative spinal pathology comprise a growing number of traumatic spinal cord injury cases, especially involving the cervical spinal cord. This makes recovery and treatment approaches particularly challenging as age and comorbidities may limit regenerative capacity. For these reasons, it is critical to better understand the complex milieu of spinal cord injury lesion pathobiology and the ensuing inflammatory response. This review discusses microglia-specific purinergic and cytokine signaling pathways, as well as microglial modulation of synaptic stability and plasticity after injury. Further, we evaluate the role of astrocytes in neurotransmission and calcium signaling, as well as their border-forming response to neural lesions. Both the inflammatory and reparative roles of these cells have eluded our complete understanding and remain key therapeutic targets due to their extensive structural and functional roles in the nervous system. Recent advances have shed light on the roles of glia in neurotransmission and reparative injury responses that will change how interventions are directed. Understanding key processes and existing knowledge gaps will allow future research to effectively target these cells and harness their regenerative potential.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Regeneration ResearchSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207