MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of intestinal lymphatics in interstitial volume regulation and transmucosal water transport

2010· review· en· W1799168084 on OpenAlexaff
Peter R. Kvietys, D. Neil Granger

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsLymphatic systemSmall intestineLymphInterstitial fluidChemistryAbsorption (acoustics)ChylomicronFiltration (mathematics)AnatomyTissue fluidPathologyBiologyMedicineBiochemistryLipoproteinMaterials scienceCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two of the principal functions of intestinal lymphatics are to assist in the maintenance of interstitial volume within relatively normal limits during alterations in capillary filtration (e.g., acute portal hypertension) and the removal of absorbed water and chylomicrons. The contribution of lymphatics to the prevention of interstitial overhydration or dehydration during alterations in transcapillary filtration is similar in the small intestine and colon. While the lymphatics of the small intestine contribute substantially to the removal of absorbed water (particularly at low and moderate absorption rates), the contribution of colonic lymphatics to the removal of the fluid absorbate is negligible. This difference is attributed to the relative caliber and location of lymphatics in the mucosal layer of the small and large intestines. In the small intestine, large lacteals lie in close proximity to transporting epithelium, while colonic lymph vessels are rather sparse and confined to the basal portion of the mucosa. In the small intestine, the lymphatics assume a more important role in removing absorbed water during lipid absorption than during glucose absorption.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations51
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207