MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804398203 · doi:10.1088/2050-6120/aac51b

A new tool for detection of extracellular traps

2018· article· en· W2804398203 on OpenAlexafffund
Alizé Proust, Julie‐Christine Lévesque, Corinne Barat, Sachiko Sato, Michel J. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods and Applications in Fluorescence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsExtracellularNeutrophil extracellular trapsImmune systemStainingCell biologyExtracellular matrixBiologyChemistryInflammationImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracellular traps ejected by various immune cells (neutrophils, macrophages, eosinophils and mast cells) have several immune functions, either protective against pathogens or deleterious in some autoimmune or inflammatory disorders. Since their first description in 2004, the mechanisms of extracellular traps formation have been extensively investigated though still not fully understood. We describe here a new tool for the detection of extracellular traps by fluorescence microscopy in a single-step staining protocol, which does not require any wash. The approach uses the GreenGlo™ DNA dye, which can differentiate between nuclear DNA and extracellular DNA (extracellular traps) released from cells using different fluorescence excitation wavelengths. GreenGlo™ staining is suitable for adherent and non-adherent cells and is expected to be extendable to extracellular traps from other cells types (i.e. eosinophils, mast cells and monocytes).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods and Applications in FluorescenceSame topicNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative MechanismsFrench-language works237,207