MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular Pathophysiology of Myofiber Injury in Deficiencies of the Dystrophin-Glycoprotein Complex

2002· review· en· W2312577323 on OpenAlexaff
Basil J. Petrof

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcolemmaDystrophinDuchenne muscular dystrophyMyocyteCell biologyMuscular dystrophyGlycoproteinDystroglycanDysferlinMedicineExtracellular matrixCytoskeletonITGA7BiologyGeneticsCellLaminin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duchenne muscular dystrophy is caused by mutations in the gene encoding dystrophin, a 427 kd protein normally found at the cytoplasmic face of the sarcolemma. In normal muscle, dystrophin is associated with a multimolecular glycoprotein complex. Primary mutations in the genes encoding members of this glycoprotein complex are also associated with muscular dystrophy. The dystrophin-glycoprotein complex provides a physical linkage between the internal cytoskeleton of myofibers and the extracellular matrix, but the precise functions of the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex remain uncertain. In this review, five potential pathogenetic mechanisms implicated in the initiation of myofiber injury in dystrophin-glycoprotein complex deficiencies are discussed: (1) mechanical weakening of the sarcolemma, (2) inappropriate calcium influx, (3) aberrant cell signaling, (4) increased oxidative stress, and (5) recurrent muscle ischemia. Particular emphasis is placed on the multifunctional nature of the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex and the fact that the above mechanisms are in no way mutually exclusive and may interact with one another to a significant degree.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations111
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207