MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062283395 · doi:10.1172/jci29148

Neuropeptide signaling and hydrocephalus: SCO with the flow

2006· letter· en· W2062283395 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Picketts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubcommissural organHydrocephalusCerebrospinal fluidReceptorEpendymal CellNeuropeptideAdenylate kinaseInternal medicineVentricular systemEndocrinologyMedicineBiologyNeuroscienceCell biologyCentral nervous systemSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital hydrocephalus affects 0.1-0.3% of live births, with a high mortality rate (approximately 50%) in the absence of surgical intervention. Although the insertion of shunts alleviates the symptoms of the majority of congenital cases, the molecular basis of hydrocephalus and the mechanisms of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) circulation remain largely unknown. Two important players are the subcommissural organ/Reissner's fiber (SCO/RF) complex and the ventricular ependymal (vel) cells that together facilitate the flow of the CSF through the narrow canals of the ventricular system. In this issue of the JCI, Lang et al. demonstrate that overexpression of the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) type I (PAC1) receptor gene results in abnormal development of the SCO and vel cells, leading to congenital hydrocephalus (see the related article beginning on page 1924). The ligand for the PAC1 receptor is the neuropeptide PACAP, which uncovers what the authors believe to be a novel role for this signaling cascade in the regulation of CSF circulation.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0140.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207