MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107429793 · doi:10.1002/bdra.20709

The role of CYP26 enzymes in defining appropriate retinoic acid exposure during embryogenesis

2010· review· en· W2107429793 on OpenAlexafffund
Tracie Pennimpede, Don Cameron, Glenn MacLean, Hui Li, Suzan Abu–Abed, Martin Petkovich

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth Defects Research Part A Clinical and Molecular Teratology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRetinoic acidEmbryogenesisRetinoidCatabolismBiologyTretinoinHypervitaminosis AEnzymeCell biologyVitaminRetinolEndocrinologyGeneticsInternal medicineMedicineBiochemistryEmbryoGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retinoic acid (RA) is a pleiotropic derivative of vitamin A, or retinol, which is responsible for all of the bioactivity associated with this vitamin. The teratogenic influences of vitamin A deficiency and excess RA in rodents were first observed more than 50 years ago. Efforts over the last 15-20 years have refined these observations by defining the molecular mechanisms that control RA availability and signaling during murine embryonic development. This review will discuss our current understanding of the role of RA in teratogenesis, with specific emphasis on the essential function of the RA catabolic CYP26 enzymes in preventing teratogenic consequences caused by uncontrolled distribution of RA. Particular focus will be paid to the RA-sensitive tissues of the caudal and cranial regions, the limb, and the testis, and how genetic mutation of factors controlling RA distribution have revealed important roles for RA during embryogenesis.

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)0.000
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations141
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirth Defects Research Part A Clinical and Molecular TeratologySame topicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207