NADPH oxidase 5 and renal disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the latest novel developments in renal NADPH oxidase 5 (Nox5) biology, with an emphasis not only on diabetic nephropathy but also on many of the other renal disease contexts in which oxidative stress is implicated. RECENT FINDINGS: Nox-derived reactive oxygen species have been shown to contribute to a wide variety of renal diseases, particularly in the settings of chronic renal disease such as diabetic nephropathy. Although much emphasis has been placed on the role of NADPH oxidase 4 in this setting, a growing body of work continues to uncover the key roles for other Nox family members, not only in diabetic kidney disease, but also in a diverse array of renal pathological conditions. The most recently identified member of the Nox family, Nox5, has for the most part been overlooked in renal disease, partly owing to its absence from the rodent genome. New evidence suggests that Nox5 may be a contributing factor in glomerulopathies and altered tubular physiology. Furthermore, Nox5 appears to harbor a significant number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms that alter its enzymatic activity. SUMMARY: Given the unique structure and expression pattern of Nox5, it may prove to be an attractive therapeutic target in the treatment of renal disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".