MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012358869 · doi:10.1155/2012/351758

The Angiotensin II Type 2 Receptor in Brain Functions: An Update

2012· article· en· W2012358869 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Odile Guimond, Nicole Gallo‐Payet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hypertension · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenin-Angiotensin System Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer's SocietyUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineNeuroscienceType (biology)Angiotensin IIReceptorComputational biologyInternal medicineBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angiotensin II (Ang II) is the main active product of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), mediating its action via two major receptors, namely, the Ang II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor and the type 2 (AT(2)) receptor. Recent results also implicate several other members of the renin-angiotensin system in various aspects of brain functions. The first aim of this paper is to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the properties and signaling of the AT(2) receptor, its expression in the brain, and its well-established effects. Secondly, we will highlight the potential role of the AT(2) receptor in cognitive function, neurological disorders and in the regulation of appetite and the possible link with development of metabolic disorders. The potential utility of novel nonpeptide selective AT(2) receptor ligands in clarifying potential roles of this receptor in physiology will also be discussed. If confirmed, these new pharmacological tools should help to improve impaired cognitive performance, not only through its action on brain microcirculation and inflammation, but also through more specific effects on neurons. However, the overall physiological relevance of the AT(2) receptor in the brain must also consider the Ang IV/AT(4) receptor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations82
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HypertensionSame topicRenin-Angiotensin System StudiesFrench-language works237,207