MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048156844 · doi:10.1681/asn.2007040471

How Do Mesangial and Endothelial Cells Form the Glomerular Tuft?

2008· review· en· W2048156844 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Vaughan, Susan E. Quaggin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsGlomerulusGlycocalyxMesangial cellTuftPodocyteCell biologyRenal glomerulusKidney GlomerulusEndothelial stem cellBiologyChemistryKidneyEndocrinologyGlomerulonephritisIn vitroProteinuriaBiochemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The glomerular capillary tuft is a highly intricate and specialized microvascular bed that filters plasma water and solute to form urine. The mature glomerulus contains four cell types: Parietal epithelial cells that form Bowman's capsule, podocytes that cover the outermost layer of the glomerular filtration barrier, glycocalyx-coated fenestrated endothelial cells that are in direct contact with blood, and mesangial cells that sit between the capillary loops. Filtration begins only after the influx and organization of endothelial and mesangial cells in the developing glomerulus. Tightly coordinated movement and cross-talk between these cell types is required for the formation of a functional glomerular filtration barrier, and disruption of these processes has devastating consequences for early life. Current concepts of the role of mesangial and endothelial cells in formation of the capillary tuft are reviewed here.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations112
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207