MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779963304 · doi:10.1007/s11357-017-0002-y

The Oxygen Paradox, the French Paradox, and age-related diseases

2017· review· en· W2779963304 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeroScience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcoholism and Thiamine Deficiency
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthUniversité Pierre et Marie CurieCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueConseil Régional de BretagneFondation de FranceAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisLigue Contre le CancerUniversité Toulouse III - Paul SabatierUniversity of Southern CaliforniaAgence Nationale de la RechercheParkinsonfondenRégion BretagneOffice for Science and Technology of the Embassy of France in the United StatesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Parkinson FoundationInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleChildren's Hospital Los AngelesNational Science FoundationAmerican Foundation for Aging ResearchU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or impossible concept, proposition, or theory that is often difficult to understand or explain, sometimes apparently self-contradictory, and yet ultimately correct or true. How is it possible, for example, that oxygen "a toxic environmental poison" could be also indispensable for life (Beckman and Ames Physiol Rev 78(2):547-81, 1998; Stadtman and Berlett Chem Res Toxicol 10(5):485-94, 1997)?: the so-called Oxygen Paradox (Davies and Ursini 1995; Davies Biochem Soc Symp 61:1-31, 1995). How can French people apparently disregard the rule that high dietary intakes of cholesterol and saturated fats (e.g., cheese and paté) will result in an early death from cardiovascular diseases (Renaud and de Lorgeril Lancet 339(8808):1523-6, 1992; Catalgol et al. Front Pharmacol 3:141, 2012; Eisenberg et al. Nat Med 22(12):1428-1438, 2016)?: the so-called, French Paradox. Doubtless, the truth is not a duality and epistemological bias probably generates apparently self-contradictory conclusions. Perhaps nowhere in biology are there so many apparently contradictory views, and even experimental results, affecting human physiology and pathology as in the fields of free radicals and oxidative stress, antioxidants, foods and drinks, and dietary recommendations; this is particularly true when issues such as disease-susceptibility or avoidance, "healthspan," "lifespan," and ageing are involved. Consider, for example, the apparently paradoxical observation that treatment with low doses of a substance that is toxic at high concentrations may actually induce transient adaptations that protect against a subsequent exposure to the same (or similar) toxin. This particular paradox is now mechanistically explained as "Adaptive Homeostasis" (Davies Mol Asp Med 49:1-7, 2016; Pomatto et al. 2017a; Lomeli et al. Clin Sci (Lond) 131(21):2573-2599, 2017; Pomatto and Davies 2017); the non-damaging process by which an apparent toxicant can activate biological signal transduction pathways to increase expression of protective genes, by mechanisms that are completely different from those by which the same agent induces toxicity at high concentrations. In this review, we explore the influences and effects of paradoxes such as the Oxygen Paradox and the French Paradox on the etiology, progression, and outcomes of many of the major human age-related diseases, as well as the basic biological phenomenon of ageing itself.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.386
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