MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regional and temporal regulation of prostaglandin E2 receptor expression: a role for decidual activation in term labor (911.7)

2014· article· en· W1511919701 on OpenAlexaffabout
Angela Vinturache, Andrea Mosher, Stephen Wood, Donna M. Slater

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeciduaProstaglandin E2 receptorReceptorProstaglandin E2ProstaglandinDecidual cellsUterusInternal medicineEndocrinologyAndrologyMedicineBiologyPregnancyPlacentaFetusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To assess if expression of prostaglandin E2 receptors (EP1, EP2, EP3 and EP4) are spatially or temporally regulated in decidua with labour onset. Methods: Decidua biopsies from caesarean section deliveries, of labouring (TL) and non‐labouring (TNL) women and from both upper (US) and lower segment (LS) regions of the uterus were collected (n=12/group). Real‐time RT‐PCR was used to quantify levels of EP1‐4 gene expression. Results: All four EPs are expressed in US and LS decidua. Expression of EP1, EP2, and EP4 is higher in LS compared to US in TNL decidua, but did not change with labor initiation. In contrast, EP3 was significantly higher than the other EP receptors in both US and LS in TNL decidua. The EP3 mRNA levels decrease in LS but not US decidua with labor initiation. Conclusions: The presence of four EP receptor subtypes within the decidua in labouring and non‐labouring women suggests that prostaglandin E2 plays an active biological role during pregnancy and labour via differential EP interaction. Our observation that EP3 levels change with labor onset suggests that EP3 are the predominant mediators of PGE2 activity in the decidua at term. These findings on differential EP regulation in decidua with labour are important for the understanding of the underlying mechanisms that govern uterine contractility and quiescence. Grant Funding Source : Supported by Canadian Institute of Health Research and Alberta Innovates‐Health Solutions

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207