MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555121231 · doi:10.1093/mmy/myw117

<i>Aspergillus</i>in chronic lung disease: Modeling what goes on in the airways

2016· review· en· W2555121231 on OpenAlexaff
Takahiro Takazono, Donald C. Sheppard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Mycology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsAllergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosisAspergillusImmunologyAsthmaAspergillus fumigatusAspergillosisChronic bronchitisMedicineLungDiseasePathogenSensitizationBiologyIntensive care medicineMicrobiologyPathologyImmunoglobulin EInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aspergillus species cause a range of respiratory diseases in humans. While immunocompromised patients are at risk for the development of invasive infection with these opportunistic molds, patients with underlying pulmonary disease can develop chronic airway infection with Aspergillus species. These conditions span a range of inflammatory and allergic diseases including Aspergillus bronchitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, and severe asthma with fungal sensitization. Animal models are invaluable tools for the study of the molecular mechanism underlying the colonization of airways by Aspergillus and the host response to these non-invasive infections. In this review we summarize the state-of-the-art with respect to the available animal models of noninvasive and allergic Aspergillus airway disease; the key findings of host-pathogen interaction studies using these models; and the limitations and future directions that should guide the development and use of models for the study of these important pulmonary conditions.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical MycologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207