MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149234757 · doi:10.1165/rcmb.2009-0175tr

Potential Role of Endothelin-1 in Pulmonary Fibrosis

2009· review· en· W2149234757 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryan Ross, Pedro D’Orléans-Juste, Adel Giaid

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisEndothelin 1MedicinePulmonary fibrosisFibrosisInternal medicineLungReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endothelin-1 (ET-1) plays a central role in lung fibrosis. It is released in the lung at low concentrations from the endothelium, epithelium, and vascular smooth muscle cells and orchestrates a variety of effects. In the context of wound healing, ET-1 acts with other profibrotic mediators to recruit fibroblasts and allow for their differentiation to contractile myofibroblasts. These specialized cells in turn lay down fibrotic tissue and contract at the site of lesions to restore tissue integrity. Apoptosis and reversion to quiescence ensues. However, in diseases of the lung such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), the fibrotic response is uncontrolled. Progressive injury to lung tissue, isolated both temporally and geographically, is uncontrolled and eventually causes enough tissue damage to alter pulmonary architecture and compromise function. The initiating mechanisms are as of yet largely unknown; however, ET-1 has clearly emerged as a key mediator of this disease. Here, a comprehensive overview of the role of ET-1 in fibrosis is given. A guided perspective begins from the scope of its various molecular interactions to its many cellular processes, and finally to the implications of these functions in IPF.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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

Citations61
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular BiologySame topicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisFrench-language works237,207