MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321899549 · doi:10.2174/138161212800165951

The Nervous System as a Critical Regulator of Immune Responses Underlying Allergy

2012· review· en· W2321899549 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Forsythe

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegulatorImmune systemAllergyImmunologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nervous and immune systems collaborate in the control of homeostasis and host defence. All divisions of the nervous system, sympathetic, parasympathetic and sensory, act to regulate immune cell function. Processes under neuronal control include antigen processing and presentation, Th1/Th2 balance, immunoglobulin production and antigen specific responses, while involvement of the central nervous system allows for behavioral changes leading to avoidance of antigen or noxious stimuli. It therefore follows that dysregulation of these complex bidirectional neuroimmune signaling systems may contribute to the aetiology and pathophysiology of immune disorders including atopic disease. A greater understanding on how the brain perceives, processes and responds to immune challenges and how multiple neurotransmitters interact to maintain or skew the balance between tolerance and immunity will undoubtedly provide opportunities for the development of novel therapeutics. Furthermore, the implications for atopic disease of relatively recent developments such as the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway and the potential direct antigen-specific activation of the nervous system require further exploration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.483
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.016 · 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207