Quiescent neural stem cells transiently become neuron-like to coordinate long-range reactivation
Gherghina et al., 2026. The EMBO Journal.
RAR demo
Quiescent neural stem cells transiently become neuron-like to coordinate long-range reactivation
Gherghina et al., 2026. The EMBO Journal.
RAR is the public-facing reviewer attention layer on top of CLEAR. It keeps the figure first, keeps author claims visible, and surfaces only the places where a reviewer should inspect the evidence, compare panels, or ask for a discriminating experiment.
Demo analysis: AFD-127. The by-figure CLEAR report remains the internal source artifact; RAR is the homepage-facing reviewer support surface.
Example analyses
Two figure-first RAR reports are live.
MHC class I on target cells regulates CD4+ T cell-mediated immunity
Lauder et al., 2026. Nature Immunology.
What changed
CLEAR reads the evidence structure. RAR turns it into reviewer work.
Figure-first attention
Click a panel to see author claims, methods, materials, and reviewer attention questions attached to the visual evidence.
Only useful friction
RAR avoids dumping every internal category. It brings forward evidence questions, synthesis tasks, supplementary lookups, and experiment suggestions.
No truth-machine theatre
The language is reviewer-facing: where to look, what to compare, and what question to ask before accepting a claim.
Live artifact
Try the RAR figure map here
Original paper: Quiescent neural stem cells transiently become neuron-like to coordinate long-range reactivation
Standalone RAR
A reviewer attention report without the full machine audit
The standalone RAR collects evidence questions, synthesis points, supplementary lookups, and paper-level alternative hypotheses. It replaces the old dense machine-facing report for demo purposes.
Why it matters
Readers can inspect the paper without first learning how to hunt through the paper.
CLEAR extracts claims, methods, materials, figure panels, graph regions, and alternative hypotheses. RAR uses that structure to guide the eye: what did the authors claim, what panel is involved, and what should a careful reviewer check next?