MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103188373 · doi:10.1002/psc.704

Function and therapeutic potential of host defence peptides

2005· review· en· W2103188373 on OpenAlex
Joseph B. McPhee, Robert E. W. Hancock

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peptide Science · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGenome PrairieCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome British ColumbiaCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsInnate immune systemAntimicrobialAntimicrobial peptidesHost (biology)Function (biology)Immune systemImmunityBiologyBroad spectrumComputational biologyMicrobiologyChemistryImmunologyCell biologyEcologyCombinatorial chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cationic host defence (antimicrobial) peptides are an important component of the innate immune systems of a wide variety of plants, animals, and bacteria. Although most of these compounds have direct antimicrobial activities under specific conditions, a greater appreciation for the diversity of functions of these molecules is beginning to develop in the field. In addition to their directly antimicrobial activities, they also have a broad spectrum of activity on the host immune system, with both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory effects being invoked. Increasingly sophisticated approaches to understand the role of host defence peptides in modulating innate immunity are already serving to guide the development of novel therapeutics.

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.

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 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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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