MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327350274 · doi:10.1097/pai.0b013e3182247506

Ghrelin Immunoexpression in the Human Hypophysis

2011· article· en· W2327350274 on OpenAlexaff
Fabio Rotondo, Angelo Rotondo, Bernd W. Scheithauer, Michael D. Cusimano, Eleanor Latta, Luis V. Syro, Kálmán Kovács

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGhrelinInternal medicineEndocrinologyParacrine signallingImmunostainingProlactinHormoneAutocrine signallingLuteinizing hormoneBiologyImmunohistochemistryMedicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to immunohistochemically localize ghrelin in autopsy-obtained, nontumoral human pituitaries. Double immunostaining was also undertaken to determine the pituitary cell type expressing both adenohypophysial hormones and ghrelin. Results showed that ghrelin is present in the adenohypophysis, its immunoexpression being cytoplasmic, weak-to-moderate, and localized to a subset of cells. Double immunostaining showed that ghrelin is present in 51% to 90% of growth hormone-producing, luteinizing-producing, and α-subunit-producing cells. Ghrelin immunoexpression was less frequently observed in other adenohypophysial cell types, being seen in 30% of adrenocorticotropin and follicle-stimulating hormones, 15% of thyrotropin, and 10% of prolactin-immunoreactive cells. Ghrelin immunopositivity was also seen in nerve fibers and Herring bodies of the neurohypophysis and pituitary stalk. More work is needed to elucidate the role of ghrelin in adenohypophysial and neurohypophysial endocrine activity. It may well be that ghrelin exerts an autocrine/paracrine effect and can modulate hormone synthesis and release.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphologySame topicRegulation of Appetite and ObesityFrench-language works237,207