MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408529078 · doi:10.1186/s12860-016-0088-6

Role of connexins and pannexins during ontogeny, regeneration, and pathologies of bone

2016· review· en· W2408529078 on OpenAlexaff
Lilian I. Plotkin, Dale W. Laird, Joëlle Amédée

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cell Biology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsPannexinCell biologyGap junctionBiologyConnexinOsteoblastGeneticsIntracellularIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electron micrographs revealed the presence of gap junctions in osteoblastic cells over 40 years ago. These intercellular channels formed from connexins are present in bone forming osteoblasts, bone resorbing osteoclasts, and osteocytes (mature osteoblasts embedded in the mineralized bone matrix). More recently, genetic and pharmacologic studies revealed the role of connexins, and in particular Cx43, in the differentiation and function of all bone types. Furthermore, mutations in the gene encoding Cx43 were found to be causally linked to oculodentodigital dysplasia, a condition that results in an abnormal skeleton. Pannexins, molecules with similar structure and single-membrane channel forming potential as connexins when organized as hemichannels, are also expressed in osteoblastic cells. The function of pannexins in bone and cartilage is beginning to be uncovered, but more research is needed to determine the role of pannexins in bone development, adult bone mass and skeletal homeostasis. We describe here the current knowledge on the role of connexins and pannexins on skeletal health and disease.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Cell BiologySame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207