Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterization and cloning of the AT(1) and AT(2) receptors would not have been possible without an assay that could detect and measure the density and affinity of these receptors. The most frequently used, if not the only, methodological approach used to investigate these receptors is the radioligand binding assay performed either in a test tube with tissue-membrane preparations or cultured cells, or on tissue sections (the latter revealed by autoradiography). This chapter will only deal with the test-tube radioligand binding assay. In this assay, a radiolabeled ligand (labeled with (125)I or (3)H, for example) is incubated with a membrane preparation or cells in presence of receptor subtype-specific antagonist or agonist. After reaching equilibrium, the receptor-bound tracer is separated from the free tracer by rapid filtration through glass fiber filters or by centrifugation. The amount (cpm) of bound tracer is then used to calculate the density and affinity of each receptor subtype. Alternatively, other experiments can be designed to derive kinetics of association and dissociation or saturation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.049 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".