MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056391535 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e3282f42211

Advances in molecular acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-induced lung injury: the role of genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics and translational biology

2008· review· en· W2056391535 on OpenAlexaff
Emilie Lam, Claúdia C. dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute respiratory distressMedicineProteomicsGenomicsTranslational researchComputational biologyBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineLungPathologyBiologyGeneInternal medicineGenomeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss emerging technologies and their application to translation biology research in the field of acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-induced lung injury. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant advances in the field of innovative therapeutics rely on our ability to identify and validate targets derived from biomedical breakthrough discoveries. The review considers recent studies that have creatively applied and integrated genomics, bioinformatics and/or proteomics to identifying novel candidate molecular targets. The focus is to present how innovative strategies have been exploited and combined with elegant translational biology experiments to advance the field of molecular acute respiratory distress syndrome/acute lung injury and ventilator-induced lung injury. SUMMARY: Renewed efforts to define the clinical phenotype have coincided with the availability of novel technology that has the potential to address critical molecular aspects of the syndrome. Convergence of these two approaches is expected to bring about a better understanding of acute lung injury and consequently further advances in treatment.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207