MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1639615124 · doi:10.1002/jcb.24836

The “Connexin” Between Bone Cells and Skeletal Functions

2014· review· en· W1639615124 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Zappitelli, Jane E. Aubin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Biochemistry · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnexinGap junctionCell biologyBone resorptionBone cellBone remodelingSkeleton (computer programming)OsteocyteCellCrosstalkCell typeBiologyChemistryNeuroscienceAnatomyOsteoblastEndocrinologyGeneticsIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The processes of bone modeling and remodeling are crucial in the skeleton's functions as a supportive and protective structure, a mineral reservoir, and an endocrine organ. The coordination between bone cell activities (bone formation and bone resorption), necessary to maintain the integrity of the skeleton during these processes, is mediated at least in part by cell-cell and cell-environment interactions across gap junctions and hemichannels. The increasing number of genetically engineered Connexin 43 (Cx43) knockout and missense mouse models have provided insight into the complex and critical roles of Cx43-containing gap junctions and hemichannels in the development and turnover of the skeleton, in differentiation, activity and survival of the bone cell lineages, and in the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which Cx43 functions and assists in mediating cellular responses to stimuli in bone. Cx43 may be an important potential therapeutic target, making it crucial that we continue to gain understanding of the multiple and complex roles of Cx43 in bone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular BiochemistrySame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207