MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050622460 · doi:10.1159/000187487

Production of Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha and Hemodialysis

2008· article· en· W2050622460 on OpenAlexaff
Christie Macdonald, David N. Rush, Keevin Bernstein, Rachel M. McKenna

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journals · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeripheral blood mononuclear cellMedicineTumor necrosis factor alphaHemodialysisCytokineInternal medicineImmunologyEndocrinologyNephrologyIn vitroBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of TNF alpha by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) was determined in 18 hemodialysis (HD) patients. Blood was taken from each patient before and after an HD treatment. Both pre- and post-HD PBMC produced significantly more TNF alpha than controls (TNF alpha units/ml; mean +/- SEM; controls 3.1 +/- 0.7; pre-HD 9.7 +/- 3.9; post-HD 19.8 +/- 7.7, p < 0.05). In addition, post-HD PBMC produced significantly more TNF alpha than pre-HD PBMC suggesting that the HD procedure itself may activate cytokine production. This was true when PBMC were cultured in serum free medium as well as on culture with non-HD sera (human AB) and autologous sera. A positive correlation was also found between the production of TNF alpha and age in HD patients (r = 0.58; p < 0.01). Finally, normal PBMC cultured in post-HD sera produced significantly less TNF alpha than when cultured in the same sera pre-HD (p < 0.02). These findings suggest that PBMC of HD patients are chronically stimulated to produce TNF alpha which may contribute to some of the short-term and long-term complications of HD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journalsSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207