Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the paper by Wapenaar et al ( see page 10.1136/gut.2007.133132 ) the authors have taken a fascinating approach to identifying shared mechanisms involved in the genesis of either coeliac disease or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).1 They argue that in these two prototypical inflammatory diseases of the intestinal mucosa there exists reasonable evidence for a defect in barrier function that appears to be required before the development of disease. Furthermore, as both diseases have strong genetic components they speculated that these syndromes might share common genetic defects in the control of intestinal barrier function. They used a genetic association analysis approach and through this identified two adapter protein coding genes that were associated with coeliac disease in patients from both Great Britain and The Netherlands. They went on to demonstrate that one of these genes was also associated with ulcerative colitis in a Dutch patient cohort. These observations are important not only for the conclusions reached in the paper but also in the broader context. Until recently, it was believed that IBD, such as Crohn’s disease, represented dysregulation of the adaptive immune system. Over the past decade, however, there has been increasing recognition of the importance of both epithelial barrier function and innate immunity in the genesis of intestinal inflammation. In the broadest sense these two factors could be argued to be different aspects of the same basic system. Within the gastrointestinal tract there is significant exposure to foreign compounds that can drive systemic inflammation through a variety of mechanisms. The gut has a tremendous number of defence mechanisms that have evolved to manage this ever-changing threat (fig 1). In general terms these include the ability to manage commensal flora in preference to pathogenic organisms, the secretion of toxic molecules such as defensins, the scavenging and binding of luminal organisms by …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".