MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416774799 · doi:10.1093/brain/awaf449

The glymphatic system and glioblastoma

2025· article· en· W4416774799 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Soumbasis, Aito Ueno, David A. Elliott, Sanju Lama, Yves Starreveld, Yunyan Zhang, Paolo Federico, Garnette R. Sutherland, Pierre LeVan, Candice C. Poon

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersBrain Tumour Foundation of Canada
KeywordsGlymphatic systemGlioblastomaLymphatic systemImmune systemHomeostasisCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discovery of the glymphatic system and meningeal lymphatic vessels revolutionized the understanding of brain waste clearance. These findings challenged the long-held notion of CNS immune privilege and provided insights into how the brain maintains homeostasis despite lacking conventional lymphatic drainage. However, the impact of pathological conditions, particularly CNS cancers, on the glymphatic system and vice versa remains underexplored. Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive primary adult CNS cancer. Its presence results in glymphatic dysfunction with significant clinical implications. Recent studies suggest that the glymphatic system interacts with GBM to influence immunity, drug delivery, fluid regulation and tumour progression, stressing its significant role in GBM biology and potentially treatment response. This review highlights the evidence for glymphatic dysfunction in GBM and its consequences. Furthermore, we discuss the potential to harness the power of the glymphatic system to improve patient outcomes in this terrible disease.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207