MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of mast cells in intestinal mucosal function: studies in models of hypersensitivity and stress

2001· review· en· W1979873552 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Linda Chia‐Hui Yu, Mary H. Perdue

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunological Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunologyMast cellBarrier functionGastrointestinal tractAntigenBiologyImmunoglobulin EReceptorEpitheliumIntestinal epitheliumStimulationColitisCell biologyAntibodyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: A single layer of epithelial cells lines the gastrointestinal tract, forming a critical barrier between the luminal contents, which includes antigens and other noxious substances, and the body proper. It has become clear in recent years that the role of mast cells in the gastrointestinal mucosa is not only to react to antigens, but also to actively regulate the barrier and transport properties of the intestinal epithelium. Mucosal mast cells respond to both IgE/antigen‐dependent and non‐IgE‐dependent stimulation, releasing bioactive mediators into adjacent tissues where they induce physiological responses. Studies in models of hypersensitivity and stress have provided evidence that changes in mucosal function are due to either direct action of mast cell mediators on epithelial receptors and/or indirect action via nerves/neurotransmitters. Studies conducted in the authors' laboratories were funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations150
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunological ReviewsSame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207