MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320758849 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.111423

Interleukin 6 in Systemic Sclerosis and Potential Implications for Targeted Therapy

2012· review· en· W2320758849 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chayawee Muangchan, Janet Pope

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScopusInterleukinRheumatologyWeb of scienceScleroderma (fungus)Internal medicineRheumatismCochrane LibraryMEDLINEImmunologyMeta-analysisCytokine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the potential importance of interleukin 6 (IL-6) in systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: PubMed and Scopus databases and American College of Rheumatology (from 2009-10) and European League Against Rheumatism abstracts (2009-11) were searched using keywords "scleroderma; SSc; cytokines; interleukins; interleukin 6" and publications were excluded if not pertaining to IL-6 in SSc. Data were extracted from selected articles to construct a cell interaction model of the effects of IL-6 in SSc. RESULTS: A total of 416 reports were found (PubMed, n = 82; Scopus, n = 331; 3 abstracts); 372 were excluded (irrelevant) leaving 41 publications and 3 abstracts (39 from PubMed, 18 from Scopus; but 16 were repeated from PubMed search), where 40 suggested IL-6 was important in SSc and 4 did not. Effects of IL-6 in SSc were summarized schematically. CONCLUSION: Of the 44 publications, 40 suggested that IL-6 may be important in SSc, allowing for a conceptual framework within SSc including effects on macrophages, fibroblasts, plasma cells, monocytes, and extracellular matrix.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207