MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893064836 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1800651

Cutting Edge: Local Proliferation of Uterine Tissue-Resident NK Cells during Decidualization in Mice

2018· article· en· W2893064836 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothy K. Sojka, Liping Yang, Béatrice Plougastel-Douglas, Darryl A. Higuchi, B. Anne Croy, Wayne M. Yokoyama

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDecidualizationDeciduaMyometriumBiologyDecidual cellsCell biologyParabiosisUterusEndocrinologyEmbryoFetusPlacentaPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract NK cells accumulate in adult murine and human uteri during decidualization induced physiologically, pathologically, or experimentally. Adoptive transfer studies indicate that uterine NK (uNK) cells arise from circulating progenitors. However, virgin uteri contain few circulating NK1.1+CD49a− conventional NK cells, whereas NK1.1+CD49a+ tissue-resident NK (trNK) cells are abundant. In this study, we employed a novel, immune-competent NK cell–specific reporter mouse to track accumulation of uNK cells during unmanipulated pregnancies. We identified conventional NK and trNK cells accumulating in both decidua basalis and myometrium. Only trNK cells showed evidence of proliferation. In parabiosis studies using experimentally induced deciduomata, the accumulated uNK cells were proliferating trNK cells; migrating NK cells made no contribution. Together, these data suggest proliferating trNK cells are the source of uNK cells during endometrial decidualization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
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

Citations86
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207