MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161625058 · doi:10.1017/s146239940601101x

Alopecia areata: pathogenesis and potential for therapy

2006· review· en· W2161625058 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

VenueExpert Reviews in Molecular Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Alopecia Areata FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsPathogenesisAlopecia areataDiseaseMechanism (biology)ImmunologyAutoimmune diseaseCircumstantial evidencePhenotypeMedicineAutoimmunityImmune systemBiologyGeneticsPathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the complete picture for alopecia areata (AA) pathogenesis has yet to be determined, recent research has made much progress in our understanding of the disease mechanism. Numerous circumstantial evidence supports the notion that AA is fundamentally a disease mediated by inflammatory cells and may be autoimmune in nature. Recent research has shown the hair-loss phenotype is precipitated predominantly by CD8+ lymphocytes, but the disease mechanism is driven by CD4+ lymphocytes. Although genetic susceptibility is a key contributor to disease development, disease onset and phenotypic presentation are probably modified by complex environmental interplay. On the basis of our current understanding of AA disease pathogenesis, several experimental and theoretical therapeutic approaches might be possible. However, the pathogenetic disease mechanism is particularly robust and the development of a cure for AA will be a significant challenge.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.326 · 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