MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591006241 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v12.i11.1657

Intestinal sugar transport

2006· review· en· W1591006241 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDigestive system and related health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonosaccharideDisaccharidaseEnterocyteLactoseBiochemistrySucraseChemistrySucroseBrush borderSugarFructoseGalactoseGlucose transporterLactaseMaltoseCarbohydrateSmall intestineBiologyEnzymeInsulinVesicleMembraneEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbohydrates are an important component of the diet. The carbohydrates that we ingest range from simple monosaccharides (glucose, fructose and galactose) to disaccharides (lactose, sucrose) to complex polysaccharides. Most carbohydrates are digested by salivary and pancreatic amylases, and are further broken down into monosaccharides by enzymes in the brush border membrane (BBM) of enterocytes. For example, lactase-phloridzin hydrolase and sucrase-isomaltase are two disaccharidases involved in the hydrolysis of nutritionally important disaccharides. Once monosaccharides are presented to the BBM, mature enterocytes expressing nutrient transporters transport the sugars into the enterocytes. This paper reviews the early studies that contributed to the development of a working model of intestinal sugar transport, and details the recent advances made in understanding the process by which sugars are absorbed in the intestine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
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