MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060565525 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.090450

Serum BLC/CXCL13 Concentrations and Renal Expression of CXCL13/CXCR5 in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Lupus Nephritis

2009· article· en· W2060565525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui-Ting Lee, Yu-Ming Shiao, Tsai-Hung Wu, Wei‐Sheng Chen, Yung‐Hsiang Hsu, Shih‐Feng Tsai, Chang‐Youh Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemokine receptors and signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Council
KeywordsCXCL13Lupus nephritisCXCR5MedicineImmunologyPathogenesisSystemic lupus erythematosusLupus erythematosusInternal medicineB cellAntibodyChemokineInflammationChemokine receptorGerminal centerDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a prototype of systemic autoimmune disease in which cytokines such as B lymphocyte chemoattractant (BLC, or CXC motif ligand 13, CXCL13) may play important roles in pathogenesis. We investigated the implications of CXCL13 in SLE and lupus nephritis. METHODS: Serum samples from 425 patients with SLE and 106 healthy control individuals were analyzed for the concentration of CXCL13 by ELISA. Tissue expression of CXCL13 and its corresponding receptor CXCR5 were observed in lupus kidney. The CXCR5-bearing B cells in SLE patients were analyzed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Serum levels of CXCL13 were higher in SLE patients compared to controls. SLE patients with lupus nephritis or positive anti-dsDNA antibodies had significantly higher serum CXCL13 levels. The peripheral venous blood B cells that bear CXCR5 were more abundant in SLE patients as detected by flow cytometry. CXCR5 and CXCL13 were highly expressed in the renal cortex from patients with lupus nephritis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that BLC/CXCL13 as well as its corresponding receptor, CXCR5, may play important roles in the pathogenesis of SLE and in lupus nephritis.

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 score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations96
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicChemokine receptors and signalingFrench-language works237,207