MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053439963 · doi:10.1017/s0965539503001153

MAMMALIAN KIDNEY DEVELOPMENT: MOLECULES TO TREATMENT

2003· article· en· W2053439963 on OpenAlexaff
Susan E. Quaggin

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal and Maternal Medicine Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidneyKidney developmentDiseaseKidney diseaseRenal dysplasiaFocal segmental glomerulosclerosisBioinformaticsGlomerulosclerosisIdentification (biology)PathologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePhysiologyGeneGlomerulonephritisProteinuriaBiologyGeneticsEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the US alone, more than 20 million people suffer from kidney disease. Despite the significant burden of renal disease for the individual and society, treatment options are limited. Over the years, the identification of genes and molecular pathways required for normal renal development has provided insight into our understanding of obvious developmental diseases such as renal agenesis and renal dysplasia. However, many of the genes identified have also been shown to play roles in adult-onset and acquired renal diseases such as focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (scarring of the renal filters). In fact, data suggest that the number of glomeruli and nephrons (filtering units) present in the kidney at birth, which is determined during fetal life, predicts the risk of kidney disease and hypertension later in life; a reduced number is associated with greater risk. To discover novel therapeutic targets and strategies to slow and reverse kidney disease, we must continue to dissect the molecular mechanisms that underlie kidney development.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.315
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal and Maternal Medicine ReviewSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207