MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075337847 · doi:10.1139/o02-150

Controversy regarding the secondary active water transport hypothesis

2002· review· en· W2075337847 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean‐Yves Lapointe, Marilène Gagnon, Dominique Gagnon, Pierre Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIon Transport and Channel Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCotransporterWater transportBiophysicsActive transportOsmosisHydrostatic pressureChemistryXenopusMembraneDiffusionIntracellularStoichiometryTransporterFacilitated diffusionOsmotic pressureIon transporterMembrane transportBiochemistrySodiumBiologyWater flowThermodynamicsEnvironmental sciencePhysicsSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, water transport across biological membranes has always been considered a passive process, i.e., the net water transport is proportional to the gradients of hydrostatic and osmotic pressure. More recently, this dogma was challenged by the suggestion that secondary active transporters such as the Na/glucose cotransporter (SGLT1) could perform secondary active water transport with a fixed stoichiometry. In the case of SGLT1, the stoichiometry would consist of one glucose molecule to two Na+ ions to 220-400 water molecules. In the present minireview, we summarize and criticize the evidence supporting and opposing this water cotransport hypothesis. Published and unpublished observations from our own laboratory are also presented in support of the idea that transport-dependent osmotic gradients begin to build up immediately after cotransport commences and are fully responsible for the cell swelling observed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicIon Transport and Channel RegulationFrench-language works237,207