MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Changes in Neutrophil Defensins during Endotoxemia

2001· article· en· W2111243579 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Emilia Klut, Beth A. Whalen, James C. Hogg

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Immunity · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBritish Columbia Lung Association
KeywordsBiologyImmunologyNeutrophileDefensinMicrobiologyInflammationAntimicrobial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial endotoxin or lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is an important causative agent of sepsis. This study determines the expression of defensins NP-2 and NP-5 and the function of polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN) in rabbits treated with LPS. PMN functional activity was assessed by measuring CD18 expression and H(2)O(2) production and by examining the lungs. NP-2 and, to a minor extent, NP-5 of circulating PMN increase during endotoxemia. This early increase is concomitant with neutrophilia and elevated CD18 expression and H(2)O(2) production, as well as with enhanced NP-2 immunoreactivity in pulmonary microvessels. A decline in defensins, shortly after the last LPS treatment, is associated with a decrease in the circulating activated PMN and enhanced immunoreactivity in the inflammatory cells, as well as with lung tissue damage. This study shows that LPS-induced changes in the defensins of circulating PMN correlate with the number and activated condition of these cells and suggests that PMN-derived products implement the inflammatory reaction that leads to lung injury and sepsis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ImmunitySame topicAntimicrobial Peptides and ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207