MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968355477 · doi:10.1513/pats.201001-014aw

Cellular Response to Cigarette Smoke and Oxidants: Adapting to Survive

2010· review· en· W1968355477 on OpenAlexaff
André M. Cantin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Thoracic Society · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic bronchitisCOPDOxidative stressMedicineEndoplasmic reticulumImmunologyMucusInflammationUnfolded protein responseGlutathioneAntioxidantPathogenesisCell biologyInternal medicineChemistryEnzymeBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gaseous and soluble phases of cigarette smoke are sources of oxidants that contribute to the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Chronic oxidative stress of cigarette smoking induces mucus secretion and inhibits cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator function. The increased mucus viscosity renders the airways susceptible to bacterial infections, a hallmark of chronic bronchitis. Furthermore, lungs chronically exposed to the toxic mixture of oxidants in cigarette smoke show signs of endoplasmic reticulum stress, unfolded protein response, altered ceramide metabolism, and apoptosis. Fortunately, the respiratory tract has developed effective adaptive cellular mechanisms to limit oxidant damage. Numerous antioxidant enzymes and glutathione-dependent detoxification systems are increased in healthy smokers. The regulation of the antioxidant response is largely dependent on the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor-2 (Nrf2) pathway. However, patients with COPD have defective Nrf2 responses. Novel therapies such as 2-cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9-dien-28-oic acid (CDDO) to correct defective Nrf2-dependent cellular response may hold promise for patients with COPD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations101
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207