MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150842499 · doi:10.1177/002215540505300111

Evaluation of Pancreatic Amylase mRNA upon Cholinergic Stimulation of Secretion

2005· article· en· W2150842499 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Gingras, Moı̈se Bendayan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbacholStimulationEndocrinologyInternal medicineAmylaseSecretionSecretagogueMessenger RNACholinergicEndoplasmic reticulumIn situ hybridizationPancreasRNAChemistryBiologyEnzymeBiochemistryMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary function of the exocrine pancreas consists of the synthesis and secretion of several digestive enzymes. It is well established that amylase secretion by rat pancreatic tissue or by isolated acinar cells in culture can be stimulated by the cholinergic agonist carbachol. However, the effect of this secretagogue on enzyme synthesis remains unclear. Some studies demonstrated increases in rates of synthesis, whereas others reported increases in secretion with or without decreases in synthesis. We have evaluated changes in pancreatic amylase mRNA and total RNA after a single injection of carbachol and under fasting conditions. Two approaches in molecular morphology were applied on rat pancreatic tissue: in situ hybridization and RNase A-gold. Both revealed decreases in RNA labeling at the level of the rough endoplasmic reticulum (RER) 5 min after stimulation of secretion and after fasting. Gradual recovery was registered 15 and 30 min after stimulation of secretion. Northern blotting confirmed drastic decreases in amylase mRNA 5 min after stimulation and after fasting. The combination of such different approaches has demonstrated drastic decreases in RNA at the RER level, reflecting declines in rates of synthesis at the translational level under all conditions tested.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
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 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Histochemistry & CytochemistrySame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207