MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740001432 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1621253114

IL-4–secreting eosinophils promote endometrial stromal cell proliferation and prevent <i>Chlamydia</i> -induced upper genital tract damage

2017· article· en· W2740001432 on OpenAlexaff
Rodolfo D. Vicetti Miguel, Nirk E. Quispe Calla, Darlene Dixon, Robert A. Foster, Andrea Gambotto, Stephen D. Pavelko, Luanne Hall‐Stoodley, Thomas L. Cherpes

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsChlamydia trachomatisChlamydiaBiologyImmunologyInnate immune systemImmune systemStromal cellImmunityEosinophilEndometritisInflammationCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common sexually transmitted bacterium, but most genital infections in women are asymptomatic. Consistent with this presentation, Chlamydia ascension into human endometrial tissue elicits robust innate and adaptive type 2 immunity. Herein, we genitally infected mice with C. trachomatis to explore the significance of type 2 innate immunity, finding that IL-4–secreting eosinophils promote endometrial stromal cell proliferation and prevent Chlamydia infection from triggering upper genital tract tissue destruction. Such results identify eosinophils as essential for repairing murine genital tissue repair after infectious insult. They also identify a need to define roles played by eosinophils in genital infections of women, and their role in other events associated with endometrial repair, including menstruation, endometritis, and endometriosis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207