MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2393972010 · doi:10.1186/s12929-016-0263-2

Dynamics of airway response in lung microsections: a tool for studying airway-extra cellular matrix interactions

2016· review· en· W2393972010 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammad Afzal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Science · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsAirwayExtracellular matrixConnective tissueLungChronic bronchitisMedicinePathologyBiologyCell biologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biological configuration of extracellular matrix (ECM) plays a key role in how mechanical interactions of the airway with its parenchymal attachments affect the dynamics of airway responses in different pulmonary disorders including asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. It is now recognized that mechanical interactions between airway tissue and ECM play a key regulatory role on airway physiology and kinetics that can lead to the reorganization and remodeling of airway connective tissue. A connective tissue is composed of airway smooth muscle cells (ASM) and the ECM, which includes variety of glycoproteins and therefore the extent of interactions between ECM and ASM affects airway dynamics during exacerbations of major pulmonary disorders. Measurement of the velocity and magnitude of airway closure or opening provide important insights into the functions of the airway contractile apparatus and the interactions with its surrounding connective tissues. This review highlights suitability of lung microsection technique in studying measurements of airway dynamics (narrowing/opening) and associated structural distortions in airway compartments.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical ScienceSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207