MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298938399 · doi:10.1586/14789450.2016.1166054

Clinical applications of bacterial glycoproteins

2016· review· en· W2298938399 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly M. Fulton, Jeffrey C. Smith, Susan M. Twine

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Proteomics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirulenceAntibiotic resistanceBiologyIntensive care medicineAdaptation (eye)GlycanMedicineComputational biologyAntibioticsGlycoproteinMicrobiologyGeneGeneticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an ongoing race between bacterial evolution and medical advances. Pathogens have the advantages of short generation times and horizontal gene transfer that enable rapid adaptation to new host environments and therapeutics that currently outpaces clinical research. Antibiotic resistance, the growing impact of nosocomial infections, cancer-causing bacteria, the risk of zoonosis, and the possibility of biowarfare all emphasize the increasingly urgent need for medical research focussed on bacterial pathogens. Bacterial glycoproteins are promising targets for alternative therapeutic intervention since they are often surface exposed, involved in host-pathogen interactions, required for virulence, and contain distinctive glycan structures. The potential exists to exploit these unique structures to improve clinical prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies. Translation of the potential in this field to actual clinical impact is an exciting prospect for fighting infectious diseases.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of ProteomicsSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207