MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164010813 · doi:10.1086/432000

Lipopolysaccharide: An Endotoxin or an Exogenous Hormone?

2005· review· en· W2164010813 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLipopolysaccharideSepsisEndogenyHormoneReceptorPathogenesisImmunologyMedicineHomeostasisBiologyCell biologyMicrobiologyEndocrinologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional models of the pathogenesis of sepsis assume that microorganisms or their products are necessarily injurious to the host. In contrast, an evolutionary perspective suggests that host-microbial interactions are a symbiotic model and that disease results from the disruption of a mutually beneficial homeostatic state. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from gram-negative bacteria is a prototypical trigger of sepsis and a target for the development of novel therapeutics. The biological mechanisms underlying the recognition of, and response to, LPS are more characteristic of a hormone than of a toxin. All mammals carry endogenous stores of LPS and express dedicated carrier proteins, a cellular receptor complex, and mechanisms that specifically antagonize the response to LPS. Disruption of any component of this complex recognition system jeopardizes host defenses against infection with exogenous microorganisms. Thus, LPS is not less an endotoxin than an exohormone, and its neutralization may potentially result in either benefit or harm.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations85
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207