MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026846077 · doi:10.1159/000085580

What Can We Learn from Animal Models of Alopecia areata?

2005· review· en· W2026846077 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin J. McElwee, Mei Yu, Sung Wook Park, Elizabeth K. Ross, Andreas M. Finner, Jerry Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlopecia areataContext (archaeology)Hair lossImmunologyPathogenesisMechanism (biology)Autoimmune diseaseDiseaseEpitopeBiologyMedicineAntigenGeneticsPathologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alopecia areata (AA) is a hair loss disease marked by a focal inflammatory infiltrate of dystrophic anagen stage hair follicles by CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytes. Although AA is thought to be an autoimmune disorder, definitive proof is lacking. Moreover, characterization of the primary pathogenic mechanisms by which hair loss is induced in AA is limited. In this context, animal models may provide a vital contribution to understanding AA. Recent research using animal models of AA has focused on providing evidence in support of a lymphocyte-mediated pathogenic mechanism consistent with AA as an autoimmune disease. In the future, research with both humans and animal models shall likely concentrate on identifying the primary antigenic epitopes involved in AA and the genetics of AA susceptibility. With a comprehensive understanding of the key elements in AA pathogenesis, new avenues for therapeutic research and intervention will be defined.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations39
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207