MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W233078714 · doi:10.3791/52800

Mouse Model of Alloimmune-induced Vascular Rejection and Transplant Arteriosclerosis

2015· article· en· W233078714 on OpenAlexafffund
Winnie Enns, Anna von Rossum, Jonathan C. Choy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsArteriosclerosisTransplant rejectionImmune systemMedicineTransplantationArteryPathologyImmunologyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vascular rejection that leads to transplant arteriosclerosis (TA) is the leading representation of chronic heart transplant failure. In TA, the immune system of the recipient causes damage of the arterial wall and dysfunction of endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells. This triggers a pathological repair response that is characterized by intimal thickening and luminal occlusion. Understanding the mechanisms by which the immune system causes vasculature rejection and TA may inform the development of novel ways to manage graft failure. Here, we describe a mouse aortic interposition model that can be used to study the pathogenic mechanisms of vascular rejection and TA. The model involves grafting of an aortic segment from a donor animal into an allogeneic recipient. Rejection of the artery segment involves alloimmune reactions and results in arterial changes that resemble vascular rejection. The basic technical approach we describe can be used with different mouse strains and targeted interventions to answer specific questions related to vascular rejection and TA.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207