MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016233068 · doi:10.1517/14728214.2012.678833

Emerging targets for the treatment of scleroderma

2012· review· en· W2016233068 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Leask

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Emerging Drugs · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineScleroderma (fungus)DiseasePersonalized medicineImmunologyBioinformaticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Scleroderma is an often-fatal autoimmune connective tissue disease. Recommendations for treating digital ulcers and pulmonary hypertension in scleroderma have recently been established by the European League Against Rheumatism. Conversely, although many valuable insights have been generated into the molecular mechanism underlying the persistent fibrotic phenotype in scleroderma, no safe, clinically proven effective treatment has been found for this aspect of the disease. AREAS COVERED: Recent evidence suggests that, based on genome-wide molecular profiling, scleroderma can be loosely divided into 'fibroproliferative' and 'inflammatory' cohorts. The latter cohort contains patients with localized and 'limited' disease, as well as a small subset of those with 'diffuse' disease. Drugs targeting either B cells or ILs might be useful to treat patients who possess an 'inflammatory' gene expression signature. EXPERT OPINION: In the future, a 'personalized medicine' approach might be used to treat patients with scleroderma: individuals with an 'inflammatory' gene expression signature may be successfully treated with drugs specifically targeting the immune system. Indeed, drugs currently approved for other rheumatic disease might also be used to treat scleroderma patients bearing an 'inflammatory' gene expression profile.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designOther design
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Emerging DrugsSame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207