MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142513442 · doi:10.1152/ajplung.90200.2008

Animal models of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2008· review· en· W2142513442 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic bronchitisCOPDPulmonary diseaseExacerbationMedicineAnimal modelDiseaseLesionBronchitisPulmonary emphysemaIntensive care medicinePathologyLungImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanisms involved in the genesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are poorly defined. This area is complicated and difficult to model because COPD consists of four separate anatomic lesions (emphysema, small airway remodeling, pulmonary hypertension, and chronic bronchitis) and a functional lesion, acute exacerbation; moreover, the disease in humans develops over decades. This review discusses the various animal models that have been used to attempt to recreate human COPD and the advantages and disadvantages of each. None of the models reproduces the exact changes seen in humans, but cigarette smoke-induced disease appears to come the closest, and genetically modified animals also, in some instances, shed light on processes that appear to play a role.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · 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