MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994861629 · doi:10.1586/ecp.09.62

Targeting the endocannabinoid system for gastrointestinal diseases: future therapeutic strategies

2010· article· en· W1994861629 on OpenAlexaff
Rudolf Schicho, Martin Storr

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocannabinoid systemSynthetic cannabinoidsMedicineCannabinoid receptorCannabis sativaPharmacologyCannabinoidEffects of cannabisNeuroscienceBioinformaticsCannabisCannabidiolBiologyReceptorInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cannabinoids extracted from the marijuana plant (Cannabis sativa) and synthetic cannabinoids have numerous effects on gastrointestinal (GI) functions. Recent experimental data support an important role for cannabinoids in GI diseases. Genetic studies in humans have proven that defects in endocannabinoid metabolism underlie functional GI disorders. Mammalian cells have machinery, the so-called endocannabinoid system (ECS), to produce and metabolize their own cannabinoids in order to control homeostasis of the gut in a rapidly adapting manner. Pharmacological manipulation of the ECS by cannabinoids, or by drugs that raise the levels of endogenous cannabinoids, have shown beneficial effects on GI pathophysiology. This review gives an introduction into the functions of the ECS in the GI tract, highlights the role of the ECS in GI diseases and addresses its potential pharmacological exploitation.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.424 · 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical PharmacologySame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207