MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170331422 · doi:10.1586/ers.13.4

The role of desmosines as biomarkers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2013· review· en· W2170331422 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Iadarola, Maurizio Luisetti

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesmosineCOPDMedicineElastinPulmonary diseaseBiomarkerIntensive care medicineDiseaseAsthmaPathologyBioinformaticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a progressive and major impact on health management, many aspects of this disorder, including development of effective and reliable biomarkers to monitor disease progression, are under intensive investigation. A huge amount of data, accumulated over the years, have provided solid evidence that two pyridinium-ring-containing amino acid isoforms, desmosine and isodesmosine (usually referred to as desmosines), unique to mature elastin in humans, are representative of the elastin breakdown occurring in chronic destructive disorders, such as COPD. This paper is aimed at providing a critical review of the methodological steps that have marked the progress in the detection of desmosines in biological fluids in health and disease, as well as the progress in the authors knowledge of desmosines' role in the pathophysiology of COPD. The authors have tried to emphasize that the suitability of desmosine as a biomarker for COPD increased over the years, as the techniques developed for its detection became progressively more sophisticated and precise. The authors conclude that desmosines, although not yet definitely proven, have nevertheless all the requisites to become a critical COPD biomarker.

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)0.003
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 score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.362 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207