MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164762058 · doi:10.1667/rr1319.1

Radiation-Induced Lung Response of AcB/BcA Recombinant Congenic Mice

2008· article· en· W2164762058 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne‐Marie Lemay, Christina K. Haston

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityChristie (Canada)
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsCongenicBronchoalveolar lavageLungFibrosisBiologyIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisPulmonary fibrosisImmunologyRespiratory diseaseMast cellPathologyMedicineGeneGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genetic factors that influence the development of radiotherapy-induced lung disease are largely unknown. Herein we identified a strain difference in lung response to radiation wherein A/J mice developed alveolitis with increased levels of pulmonary mast cells and cells in bronchoalveolar lavage while the phenotype in C57BL/6J mice was fibrosis with fewer inflammatory cells. To identify genomic loci that may influence these phenotypes, we assessed recombinant congenic (RC) mice derived from the A/J and C57BL/6J strains for their propensity to develop alveolitis or fibrosis after 18 Gy whole-thorax irradiation. Mouse survival, lung histopathology and bronchoalveolar lavage cell types were recorded. Informative strains for each of mast cell influx, bronchoalveolar cell numbers, alveolitis and fibrosis were identified. In mice with the A/J strain background, the severity of alveolitis correlated with increased mast cell numbers while in C57BL/6J background strain mice fibrosis was correlated with the percentage of neutrophils in lavage. The data for RC mice support the association of specific inflammatory cells with the development of radiation-induced lung disease and provide informative strains with which to dissect the genetic basis of these complex traits.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation ResearchSame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207