MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023936078 · doi:10.1139/g09-022

Study on correlation of signal molecule genes and their receptor-associated genes with rat liver regeneration

2009· article· en· W2023936078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cunshuan Xu, Hengyi Shao, Bin Du

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneBiologyDownregulation and upregulationGene expressionMolecular biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the effect of signal molecules and their receptor-associated genes on rat liver regeneration (LR) at the transcriptional level, the associated genes were originally obtained by retrieving the databases and related scientific publications; their expression profiles in rat LR were then checked using the Rat Genome 230 2.0 microarray. The LR-associated genes were identified by comparing gene expression difference between partial hepatectomy groups and operation-control groups. A total of 454 genes were proved to be LR related. The genes associated with the seven kinds of signal molecules (steroid hormones, fatty acid derivatives, protein and polypeptide hormones, amino acids and their derivatives, choline, cytokines, and gas signal molecules) were detected to be enriched in a cluster characterized by upregulated expression in LR. The number of genes related to the seven kinds of signal molecules was, in sequence, 63, 27, 100, 102, 16, 166, and 18. The 1027 frequencies of upregulation and 823 frequencies of downregulation in total as well as 42 types of different expression patterns suggest the complex and diverse gene expression changes in LR. It is presumed that signal molecules played an important role in metabolism, inflammation, cell proliferation, growth and differentiation, etc., during rat LR.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207