MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009680515 · doi:10.1016/j.ygeno.2012.12.003

Deleterious effects of indomethacin in the mid-gestation human intestine

2012· article· en· W2009680515 on OpenAlexafffund
Nancy Perron, Éric Tremblay, Emanuela Ferretti, Corentin Babakissa, Ernest G. Seidman, Émile Lévy, Daniel Ménard, Jean‐François Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueGenomics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyTranscriptomeGlycolysisFold changeGestationDNA microarrayInflammationMicroarrayGene expressionFetusSmall intestineEndocrinologyInternal medicinePharmacologyGeneEnzymeBiochemistryImmunologyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of the anti-inflammatory drug indomethacin (INDO) in preterm infants has been associated with an increased risk of developing enteropathies. In this study, we have investigated the direct impact of INDO on the human mid-gestation intestinal transcriptome using serum-free organ culture. After determining the optimal dose of 1 μM of INDO (90% inhibition of intestinal prostaglandin E2 production and range of circulating levels in treated preterm babies), global gene expression profiles were determined using Illumina bead chip microarrays in both small and large intestines after 48 h of INDO treatment. Using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis software, we identified critical metabolic pathways that were significantly altered by INDO in both intestinal segments including inflammation and also glycolysis, oxidative phosphorylation and free radical scavenging/oxidoreductase activity, which were confirmed by qPCR at the level of individual genes. Taken together, these data revealed that INDO directly exerts multiple detrimental effects on the immature human intestine.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomicsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207