MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-classical Signalling of Growth Hormone in the Chick Neural Retina?

2014· article· en· W2327526763 on OpenAlexaff
S. Harvey, Marie‐Laure Baudet, Maricela Luna, Carlos Arámburo

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Biology Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRetinaParacrine signallingReceptorEndocrinologyInternal medicineGrowth hormone receptorAutocrine signallingHormoneCell biologyBiochemistryNeuroscienceGrowth hormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth hormone (GH) signalling is traditionally via a ‘classical’ GH-receptor (GHR) that is present in the plasma membrane of target cells. GHRs are present in the neural retina of early chick embryos (within the first trimester of incubation) but these are unlikely to be endocrine target sites of GH action, as pituitary GH is not secreted into the bloodstream until late in development (approximately day 17 of the 21 days incubation period) and because the blood–ocular barrier would block the entry of systemic GH into the retina. As GH is expressed in the early neural retina, retinal GHRs are thus likely to be autocrine or paracrine sites of GH action. The most abundant GH moieties in the neural retina are, however, unlikely to activate ‘classical’ GHRs in the neural retina, as they are submonomeric molecules (of 15 kDa and 16.5 kDa) that fail to bind to plasma membrane receptor (15 kDa GH) or lack the stoichiometric requirements likely required for GHR binding (16.5 kDa GH). Nevertheless, 15 kDa GH is biologically active in chicks and the immunoneutralisation of endogenous 16.5 kDa GH induces biological activity. It is therefore possible that GH in the neural retina of early chick embryos acts non-classically or via ‘non-classical’ GHRs. These possibilities are the focus of this brief review.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian Biology ResearchSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207