MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proteases and lung injury

2003· review· en· W2002257788 on OpenAlexaff
Theo J. Moraes, Chung‐Wai Chow, Gregory P. Downey

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsARDSMedicineProteasesNeutrophil elastaseElastaseRespiratory distressHypoxemiaImmunologyLungDiffuse alveolar damagePathophysiologyAcute respiratory distressIntensive care medicineInflammationPathologyInternal medicineEnzymeBiochemistryBiologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents an inflammatory process that is initiated by diverse systemic and/or pulmonary insults, resulting in a clinical syndrome of severe respiratory distress and refractory hypoxemia. Neutrophils and their cytotoxic products, including oxidants and proteases, such as elastase, have been implicated as playing a key role in the pathophysiology of ARDS. This article reviews some of the physiologic actions of proteases, specifically elastase, the evidence for neutrophil elastase involvement in ARDS, and the potential therapeutic use of neutrophil elastase inhibitors in lung injury. DATA SOURCE: A review of published literature (original articles and reviews) in English from 1965 to 2002. CONCLUSION: Although the data support a key role for neutrophil elastase in the pathogenesis of ARDS, further study is needed to fully define the actions of neutrophil elastase, and how these actions affect host functions, before we can exploit this knowledge for therapeutic benefit.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations207
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative MechanismsFrench-language works237,207