MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061157573 · doi:10.1513/pats.200501-008ac

Ventilator-induced Lung Injury: Role of Protein–Protein Interaction in Mechanosensation

2005· review· en· W2061157573 on OpenAlexaff
Bing Han

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Thoracic Society · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanosensationLungIntensive care medicineImmunologyInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For critically ill patients, mechanical ventilation is a commonly used life-supporting modality, but ventilation per se could also induce lung injury. Mechanical forces-induced cell damage and inflammatory responses have been considered as one of major mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Mechanotransduction related to VILI has been the subject of several recent reviews, which focused on the mechanical force-induced signal cascades. In this article, we will discuss the initial processes, mechanosensation, by which physical forces can be sensed by the cells and converted into biochemical reactions for intracellular signaling. In addition to suggested mechanosensors, such as stretch-activated ion channels, extracellular matrix-integrin-cytoskeleton complex, and growth factor receptors, we would like to introduce a new concept of intracellular mechanosensation through specific protein-protein interactions. Proteins associated with the cytoskeleton could transmit physical forces, and bind with signaling-related enzymes through specific functional domains and motifs. These interactions could lead to activation or inactivation of the enzymes, and subsequently alter the signal transduction processes in the cells. Understanding these mechanisms will help us to develop new strategies for the management of VILI.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations71
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207