MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412153709 · doi:10.1186/s12987-025-00688-z

Restoring brain barriers: an innovative approach for treating neurological disorders

2025· review· en· W4412153709 on OpenAlexafffund
Sighild Lemarchant, Britta Engelhardt, Francesca Cicchetti, Gregory Bix, Annette Janus, Yann Godfrin, Hélène Blasco, Matthew Campbell, Aurélie de Rus Jacquet

Bibliographic record

VenueFluids and Barriers of the CNS · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéParkinson's FoundationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNeurologyMedicineIntensive care medicineNeurosciencePsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complex etiology of neurological disorders is a major challenge to the identification of therapeutic candidates. Tackling brain vascular dysfunction is gaining attention from the scientific community, neurologists and pharmaceutical companies, as a novel disease-modifying strategy. Here, we provide evidence that at least 41% of neurological diseases and related conditions/injuries display a co-pathology of blood-brain and blood-spinal cord barrier alterations and dysfunctions, and we discuss why this figure may represent only a fraction of a larger phenomenon. We further provide clinical evidence that barrier status may contribute to pathological and functional outcomes in patients. Finally, we discuss drug candidates under development to repair brain barriers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFluids and Barriers of the CNSSame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207