MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1791724134 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00798-2015

Potassium channels in pulmonary arterial hypertension

2015· review· en· W1791724134 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Boucherat, Sophie Chabot, Fabrice Antigny, Frédéric Perros, Steeve Provencher, Sébastien Bonnet

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePotassium channelVasoconstrictionPathogenesisPulmonary hypertensionCardiologyPulmonary arteryInternal medicineHypoxic pulmonary vasoconstrictionSmooth muscleThrombosisVasodilationEndothelial dysfunction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a devastating cardiopulmonary disorder with various origins. All forms of PAH share a common pulmonary arteriopathy characterised by vasoconstriction, remodelling of the pre-capillary pulmonary vessel wall, and in situ thrombosis. Although the pathogenesis of PAH is recognised as a complex and multifactorial process, there is growing evidence that potassium channels dysfunction in pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells is a hallmark of PAH. Besides regulating many physiological functions, reduced potassium channels expression and/or activity have significant effects on PAH establishment and progression. This review describes the molecular mechanisms and physiological consequences of potassium channel modulation. Special emphasis is placed on KCNA5 (Kv1.5) and KCNK3 (TASK1), which are considered to play a central role in determining pulmonary vascular tone and may represent attractive therapeutic targets in the treatment of PAH.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations81
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207