MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1795186414 · doi:10.1177/153537020122600903

Drug-Induced Phospholipidosis: Are There Functional Consequences?

2001· review· en· W1795186414 on OpenAlexaff
Mark J. Reasor, Sam Kacew

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Biology and Medicine · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Research and Pathophysiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhospholipidosisDrugAmphiphilePharmacologyCationic polymerizationChemistryMedicinePhospholipidBiochemistryMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phospholipidosis induced by drugs with a cationic amphiphilic structure is a generalized condition in humans and animals that is characterized by an intracellular accumulation of phospholipids and the concurrent development of concentric lamellar bodies. The primary mechanism responsible for the development of phospholipidosis is an inhibition of lysosomal phospholipase activity by the drugs. While the biochemical and ultrastructural features of the condition have been well characterized, much less effort has been directed toward understanding whether the condition has adverse effects on the organism. While there are a few cationic amphiphilic drugs that have been reported to cause phospholipidosis in humans, the principal concern with this condition is in the pharmaceutical industry during preclinical testing. While this class of drugs should technically be referred to as cationic lipophilic, the term cationic amphiphilic is widely used and recognized in this field, and for this reason, the terminology cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs) will be employed in this Minireview. The aim of this Minireview is to provide an evaluation of the state of knowledge on the functional consequences of CAD-induced phospholipidosis.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations265
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Biology and MedicineSame topicBiomedical Research and PathophysiologyFrench-language works237,207