Additional file 1 of Embryonic microglia influence developing hypothalamic glial populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Supplementary Figure 1. Successful knock down of microglia using the Csf1R antagonist, PLX5622, given to dams in chow starting at E3.5 onwards. (a) Magnified images from control of Iba1 and Csf1R to view cell morphology and merged imaging. The majority of Csf1R+ cells co-label with Iba1 with rare exceptions (white arrow) that still appear to have a microglial cell morphology. (b) Timeline of microglia knock down model whereby pregnant dams are given PLX5622 or control diet starting at E3.5 and embryonic/postnatal samples were taken at E15.5, E17.5 and P2. (c) In situ hybridization using a csf1r probe to identify mRNA expression in P2 tuberal hypothalamic brain slices in PLX5622 treated and control treated animals. Scattered labeling of cells with csf1r mRNA is seen in the control with some concentration at the ventricle but expression appears to be absent in the PLX5622 model. There is background staining in the PLX5622 sample, but this does not take on the same robust, and cell-like appearance of positive staining seen in the control sample. (d) Control shows both Iba1+ and Csf1R+ cells with microglia-like morphology that are absent in dams treated with PLX5622, which only shows background blood vessel staining. Scale bar = 100μm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.889 | 0.238 |
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".