MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

T-cell–induced mucosal damage in the intestine

2004· article· en· W2047605880 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Croitoru, Pengfei Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Gastroenterology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCell biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: T cells are central to most inflammatory disorders of the intestine, particularly Celiac disease, graft vs. host disease, Crohn disease, and ulcerative colitis. The mechanisms by which T cells contribute to mucosal damage in these disorders have been explored using both in vitro and in vivo models. This review will highlight recent studies directed at understanding the mechanisms by which T cells are involved in the induction of mucosal damage. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent studies of in vivo T-cell activation using monoclonal anti-CD3 antibody have shown that a number of cytotoxic T-cell pathways are required and involved in the induction of mucosal damage and in particular in the induction of epithelial cell apoptosis. These include the Fas/FasL and perforin pathways. Other mediators of T-cell-induced cytotoxicity, such as TNFalpha and IFNgamma may contribute to mucosal damage but are not required for the induction of mucosal damage in vivo. In addition, several studies have tried to identify the role of regulatory mucosal T cells and the physiologically relevant triggers for T-cell-induced mucosal damage. SUMMARY: It is now clear that there are significant redundancies in the mechanisms that lead to immune-mediated mucosal damage and that the mechanisms that operate in vivo may not be predicted by in vitro experiments. These investigations are improving our understanding of the pathogenesis of immune-mediated enteropathies and will hopefully lead to new approaches to the management of these disorders.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207