MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068398839 · doi:10.1002/jez.a.10309

Channels, pumps, and exchangers in the gill and kidney of freshwater fishes: Their role in ionic and acid‐base regulation

2003· review· en· W2068398839 on OpenAlexaff
Steve F. Perry, Arash Shahsavarani, T. Georgalis, M. Bayaa, Marosh Furimsky, Serge Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Zoology Part A Comparative Experimental Biology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReabsorptionAcid–base homeostasisKidneyIonic bondingGillRenal physiologyBase (topology)ExcretionFish <Actinopterygii>Cell biologyIon transporterBiochemistryBiologyChemistryBiophysicsIonEndocrinologyMembraneFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In freshwater fishes, the gill and kidney are intricately involved in ionic and acid-base regulation owing to the presence of numerous ion channels, pumps, or exchangers. This review summarizes recent developments in branchial and renal ion transport physiology and presents several models that integrate epithelial ion and acid-base movements in freshwater fishes. At the gill, three cell types are potentially involved in ionic uptake: pavement cells, mitochondria-rich (MR) PNA(+) cells, and MR PNA(-) cells. The transfer of acidic or basic equivalents between the fish and its environment is accomplished largely by the gill and is appropriately regulated to correct acid-base imbalances. The kidney, while less important than the gill in overall acid or base excretion, has an essential role in regulating systemic acid-base balance by controlling HCO(3) (-) reabsorption from the filtrate.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations236
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Zoology Part A Comparative Experimental BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207