MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119419588 · doi:10.1513/pats.201202-017aw

Mechanical Aspects of Lung Fibrosis: A Spotlight on the Myofibroblast

2012· article· en· W2119419588 on OpenAlexafffund
Boris Hinz

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Thoracic Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineMyofibroblastFibrosisLung fibrosisContraction (grammar)Pulmonary fibrosisLungPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contractile myofibroblasts are responsible for the irreversible alterations of the lung parenchyma that hallmark pulmonary fibrosis. In response to lung injury, a variety of different precursor cells can become activated to develop myofibroblast features, most notably formation of stress fibers and expression of α-smooth muscle actin. Starting as an acute and beneficial repair process, myofibroblast secretion of collagen and contraction frequently becomes excessive and persists. The result is accumulation of stiff scar tissue that obstructs and ultimately destroys lung function. In addition to being a consequence of myofibroblast activities, the stiffened tissue is also a major promoter of the myofibroblast. The mechanical properties of scarred lung and fibrotic foci promote myofibroblast contraction and differentiation. One essential element in this detrimental feed-forward loop is the mechanical activation of the profibrotic growth factor transforming growth factor-β1 from stores in the extracellular matrix. Interfering with myofibroblast contraction and integrin-mediated force transmission to latent transforming growth factor-β1 and matrix proteins are here presented as possible therapeutic strategies to halt fibrosis.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations238
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisFrench-language works237,207