MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184066828 · doi:10.1515/iupac.81.0001

Immunological Effects of Mercury

2016· dataset· en· W2184066828 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Schwenk, Reinhild Klein, Douglas M. Templeton

Bibliographic record

VenueIUPAC Standards Online · 2016
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Immune systemAntibodyAutoimmune diseaseImmunologyAutoantibodyAutoimmunityAntigenImmunosuppressionChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various chemical species of mercury differ considerably with regard to their route of absorption and their distribution in the body, yet many of them and their metabolites exhibit high-affinity binding to sulfanyl groups of proteins. Among all metals, mercury appears to have the most diverse effects on the immune system. Depending on the animal species and experimental conditions, mercury compounds may cause immunosuppression or immunostimulation, autoimmune reactions, or hypersensitivity. Mercury-sensitive strains of rats and mice are often used as model organisms to study the time course and events in autoimmunity. Within about 14 days after onset of oral mercury(II) exposure, levels of immunoglobulins E and G (IgE and IgG) increase, including autoantibodies to biomolecules such as laminin and fibrillarin. Antigen-antibody complexes are formed and are the cause of subsequent autoimmune diseases of blood vessels and organs. Mercury may induce local mercury hypersensitivity in humans, but the evidence for a role of mercury in autoimmune disease of humans is at best weak. Models for the immune effects of mercury are presented on the basis of current knowledge.

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)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.015

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.417 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIUPAC Standards OnlineSame topicOral Health Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207