MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164328946 · doi:10.1667/rr3072.1

Genetic Deficiency in Complement Component 4b Does Not Alter Radiation-Induced Lung Disease in Mice

2012· article· en· W2164328946 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Fox, Marie-Ève Bergeron, Christina K. Haston

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchoalveolar lavageLungHydroxyprolinePathologyPulmonary fibrosisFibrosisRespiratory diseaseImmunologyBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous investigations have shown altered levels of complement components to be associated with radiation-induced lung disease. In this study we aimed to determine whether a deficiency in complement component 4b alters the lung response to irradiation of C57BL/6 mice. The pulmonary phenotype of C57BL/6 C4b(-/-) mice and their wild-type littermates was assessed following an 18 Gy single dose to the thoracic cavity. The assessed end points included, survival time postirradiation, bronchoalveolar lavage cell differential, hydroxyproline measures and histological evidence of alveolitis and fibrosis. The lung phenotype of C4b-deficient mice did not differ from that of wild-type mice in terms of survival time postirradiation, tissue hydroxyproline levels or by histological evidence of alveolitis or fibrosis. No differences in bronchoalveolar cell differential counts were evident among the irradiated mice grouped by C4b genotype. We concluded that a deficiency in C4b does not alter radiation-induced lung disease in the C57BL/6 mouse model.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation ResearchSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207