MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970924569 · doi:10.2174/138161212799315911

Nitric Oxide and L-Arginine Deficiency in Cystic Fibrosis

2012· review· en· W1970924569 on OpenAlexaff
Hartmut Grasemann, Félix Ratjen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitric oxideCystic fibrosisArginasePeroxynitriteNitric oxide synthasePseudomonas aeruginosaArginineMedicineImmunologyChemistryBiochemistryEnzymeInternal medicineBiologyBacteriaAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concentrations of nitric oxide are decreased in airways of patients with cystic fibrosis. The reasons for this nitric oxide deficiency are incompletely understood but may include reduced production from nitric oxide synthases due to decreased expression, the enzymes in airway epithelial cells, reduced availability of L-arginine, the substrate for nitric oxide synthases, and the presence of endogenous inhibitors of the enzymes in the airways. As nitric oxide plays a role in a number of important physiological processes in the lung including host defense against pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, inflammation and the regulation of vascular and broncho motor tone, the lack of nitric oxide may contribute to lung disease in cystic fibrosis patients. Therapeutic interventions aiming to correct the nitric oxide deficiency in the cystic fibrosis airways are therefore currently being explored as new therapies for these patients.

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)0.000
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.169 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207