MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 Levels Correlate with the Extent of Subclinical Tubulitis

2009· article· en· W1974321626 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Schaub, Peter Nickerson, David N. Rush, Michael Mayr, Christoph Hess, Mehrdad Golian, William P. Stefura, Kent T. HayGlass

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPolyomavirus and related diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSubclinical infectionMedicineCXCL9Urinary systemHistologyCXCR3UrologyPathologyInternal medicineChemokineCXCL10InflammationChemokine receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subclinical tubulitis has been associated with the later development of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IF/TA), leading to diminished allograft survival. The aim of this study was to investigate how concentrations of urinary CXC-receptor 3 (CXCR3) chemokines (i.e. CXCL4/9/10/11) and CCL2 relate to the extent of subclinical tubulitis. Using ELISA, urinary CXCR3 chemokines, CCL2 and tubular injury markers (i.e. urinary NGAL and alpha1-microglobulin [alpha1 m]) were measured in patients with stable estimated GFR >or=40 mL/min exhibiting normal tubular histology (n = 24), subclinical borderline tubulitis (n = 18) or subclinical tubulitis Ia/Ib (n = 22), as well as in patients with clinical tubulitis Ia/Ib (n = 17) or IF/TA (n = 10). CXCL9 and CXCL10 were significantly higher in subclinical tubulitis Ia/Ib than in subclinical borderline tubulitis (p <or= 0.03) and normal tubular histology (p <or= 0.0002). By contrast, NGAL, alpha1-m, CXCL4, CXCL11 and CCL2 were not or only marginally distinctive across these patient groups. All urinary chemokines and tubular injury markers were higher in clinical tubulitis Ia/Ib than in normal tubular histology (p

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations152
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicPolyomavirus and related diseasesFrench-language works237,207