MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799374630 · doi:10.3390/medsci6020034

The Role of Adipokines in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

2018· review· en· W2799374630 on OpenAlexaff
Anirudh Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdipokineMedicineAdiponectinLeptinPathophysiologyBioinformaticsInflammationIntervertebral discObesityInternal medicineInsulin resistanceSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is an important cause of low back pain. Recent evidence suggests that in addition to abnormal and excessive mechanical loading, inflammation may be a key driver for both IDD and low back pain. Obesity, a known mechanical risk factor of IDD, is now increasingly being recognized as a systemic inflammatory state with adipokines being postulated as likely inflammatory mediators. The aim of this review was to summarize the current literature regarding the inflammatory role of adipokines in the pathophysiology of IDD. A systematic literature search was performed using the OVID Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases to identify all studies assessing IDD and adipokines. Fifteen studies were included in the present review. Leptin was the most commonly assessed adipokine. Ten of 15 studies were conducted in humans; three in rats and two in both humans and rats. Studies focused on a variety of topics ranging from receptor identification, pathway analysis, genetic associations, and proteonomics. Currently, data from both human and animal experiments demonstrate significant effects of leptin and adiponectin on the internal milieu of intervertebral discs. However, future studies are needed to determine the molecular pathway relationships between adipokines in the pathophysiology of IDD as avenues for future therapeutic targets.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations54
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical SciencesSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207