Molecular mechanisms in lymphangiogenesis: model systems and implications in human disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basic science and development of therapies targeting the blood vascular system has enjoyed much focus due to the knowledge of the molecular mechanisms behind its development and roles in disease. However, the closely associated lymphatic system, while also being responsible for a number of serious and debilitating diseases, has not garnered as much attention due to the lack of specific molecular markers, thereby limiting this field to no more than descriptive analysis. Within the past decade, great strides have been taken to identify a number of molecular signatures unique to the lymphatic system. To this end, the timeline for lymphatic development has now been redefined at the molecular level, and diseases associated with lymphatics now have a molecular basis. With this knowledge, the current modes of treatment for disease such as lymphedema, lymphangiomas, and metastatic progression can now be augmented with potential molecular therapies that have currently been tested in a number of animal models. Much like the therapeutics that have been associated with vasculogenesis and angiogenesis, manipulation of the molecular pathways that define lymphatic development may lead to better clinical outcomes associated with developmental defects and disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
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".