MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148455158 · doi:10.1152/ajplung.00172.2004

Cell-cell interactions in regulating lung function

2004· review· en· W2148455158 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Boitano, Zeenat Safdar, Donald G. Welsh, Jahar Bhattacharya, Michael Koval

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsColumbia CollegeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdherens junctionGap junctionTight junctionCell biologyCell junctionBarrier functionCell signalingCadherinSeptate junctionsCell–cell interactionCellBiologyChemistryIntracellularSignal transductionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tight junction barrier formation and gap junctional communication are two functions directly attributable to cell-cell contact sites. Epithelial and endothelial tight junctions are critical elements of the permeability barrier required to maintain discrete compartments in the lung. On the other hand, gap junctions enable a tissue to act as a cohesive unit by permitting metabolic coupling and enabling the direct transmission of small cytosolic signaling molecules from one cell to another. These components do not act in isolation since other junctional elements, such as adherens junctions, help regulate barrier function and gap junctional communication. Some fundamental elements related to regulation of pulmonary barrier function and gap junctional communication were presented in a Featured Topic session at the 2004 Experimental Biology Conference in Washington, DC, and are reviewed in this summary.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations47
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologySame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207