MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diversity Within Pericytes

2000· review· en· W2009206983 on OpenAlexaff
David Sims

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPericyteMicrovesselMural cellPopulationPathologyBiologyCell biologyEndothelial stem cellEndotheliumHydrostatic pressureMedicineImmunohistochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Pericytes are cells of microvessels (arterioles, capillaries and venules) that wrap around endothelial cells. They are most abundant on venules and are common on capillaries. 2. The pericyte population is highly variable between different tissues and organs, probably in a manner reflecting postarteriolar hydrostatic pressures. Pericytes are more abundant in the distal legs and feet, again suggesting a hydrostatic pressure-driven mechanical role for pericytes as protectors of microvessel wall integrity. 3. Pericyte alteration or degeneration is linked directly with microangiopathy in diabetes, scleroderma, hypertension, dementias and, possibly, inappropriate calcification of blood vessels. 4. Pericytes are functionally codependent on endothelial cells. Each cell type influences each others' mitotic rate and probably phenotypic expression. 5. Pericytes are not randomly located around microvessels. Instead, they are located adjacent to or over endothelial cell junctions of venules and especially over gaps between endothelial cells during inflammation. Pericytes are emerging as essential components of the microvessel wall, with metabolic, signalling and mechanical roles to support the endothelial cell.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations273
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental Pharmacology and PhysiologySame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207