MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2709557052 · doi:10.1111/joim.12645

Vasopressin: physiology, assessment and osmosensation

2017· review· en· W2709557052 on OpenAlexaff
Lise Bankir, Daniel G. Bichet, N. G. Morgenthaler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Internal Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasopressinEndocrinologyCopeptinInternal medicineThirstPlasma osmolalityHomeostasisReceptorMedicineVasopressin receptorArginine vasopressin receptor 2NeuropeptideHypothalamusKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vasopressin (AVP) plays a major role in the regulation of water and sodium homeostasis by its antidiuretic action on the kidney, mediated by V2 receptors. AVP secretion is stimulated by a rise in plasma osmolality, a decline in blood volume or stress. V1a receptors are expressed in vascular smooth muscle cells, but the role of vasopressin in blood pressure regulation is still a matter of debate. AVP may also play a role in some metabolic pathways, including gluconeogenesis, through its action on V1a receptors expressed in the liver. It is now understood that thirst and arginine vasopressin (AVP) release are regulated not only by the classical homeostatic, intero-sensory plasma osmolality negative feedback, but also by novel, extero-sensory, anticipatory signals. AVP measurement is time-consuming, and AVP level in the blood in the physiological range is often below the detection limit of the assays. Recently, an immunoassay has been developed for the measurement of copeptin, a fragment of the pre-provasopressin molecule that is easier to measure. It has been shown to be a good surrogate marker of AVP.

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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations264
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Internal MedicineSame topicElectrolyte and hormonal disordersFrench-language works237,207