MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329094331 · doi:10.1177/0022034516641890

Host-Microbiome Cross-talk in Oral Mucositis

2016· review· en· W2329094331 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rebeca Vasconcelos, N. Sanfilippo, Bruce J. Paster, AR Kerr, Yihong Li, Luciana Maria Pedreira Ramalho, Erica Queiroz, Benjamin D. Smith, Stephen T. Sonis, Patricia Corby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesYork UniversityGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance
KeywordsMucositisMicrobiomeHost (biology)Oral MicrobiomeHost responseHost factorsMedicineBiologyImmunologyBioinformaticsImmune systemInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral mucositis (OM) is among the most common, painful, and debilitating toxicities of cancer regimen-related treatment, resulting in the formation of ulcers, which are susceptible to increased colonization of microorganisms. Novel discoveries in OM have focused on understanding the host-microbial interactions, because current pathways have shown that major virulence factors from microorganisms have the potential to contribute to the development of OM and may even prolong the existence of already established ulcerations, affecting tissue healing. Additional comprehensive and disciplined clinical investigation is needed to carefully characterize the relationship between the clinical trajectory of OM, the local levels of inflammatory changes (both clinical and molecular), and the ebb and flow of the oral microbiota. Answering such questions will increase our knowledge of the mechanisms engaged by the oral immune system in response to mucositis, facilitating their translation into novel therapeutic approaches. In doing so, directed clinical strategies can be developed that specifically target those times and tissues that are most susceptible to intervention.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations124
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207