MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729928936 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04977-y

Presence of diabetes autoantigens in extracellular vesicles derived from human islets

2017· article· en· W2729928936 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig Hasilo, Sarita Negi, Isabelle Allaeys, Nathalie Cloutier, Alissa K. Rutman, Marco Gasparrini, Éric Bonneil, Pierre Thibault, Éric Boilard, Steven Paraskevas

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceUniversité de MontréalCanadian Natural ResourcesUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecMcGill University Health CentreInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAstellas PharmaMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsExtracellular vesiclesExtracellularDiabetes mellitusIsletCell biologyComputational biologyChemistryBiologyMedicineBioinformaticsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beta-cell (β-cell) injury is the hallmark of autoimmune diabetes. However, the mechanisms by which autoreactive responses are generated in susceptible individuals are not well understood. Extracellular vesicles (EV) are produced by mammalian cells under normal and stressed physiological states. They are an important part of cellular communication, and may serve a role in antigen processing and presentation. We hypothesized that isolated human islets in culture produce EV that contain diabetes autoantigens (DAA) from these otherwise normal, non-diabetic donors. Here we report the caspase-independent production of EV by human islets in culture, and the characterization of DAA glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65) and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8), as well as the β-cell resident glucose transporter 2 (Glut2), present within the EV.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207