MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896987298 · doi:10.3233/ch-189320

Inhibition of GPR 55 improves dysregulated immune response in experimental sepsis

2018· article· en· W2896987298 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Zhou, Hye-Won Yang, Christine Lehmann

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepsisIntravital microscopyImmune systemProinflammatory cytokineMicrocirculationMedicineCytokineImmunologyInflammationTumor necrosis factor alphaSystemic inflammatory response syndromeInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sepsis is a medical condition caused by dysregulated systemic inflammatory response against infection, resulting in high mortality. Despite intensive research over the last few decades, the results from multiple clinical trials targeting specific inflammatory mediators have been disappointing. In the present study, we investigated the role of G protein-coupled receptor GPR55 modulation on immune response in an experimental sepsis model (endotoxemia). Immune response was evaluated by analyzing leukocyte-endothelial interactions and capillary perfusion in the intestinal microcirculation using intravital microscopy. In addition, the levels of plasma inflammatory cytokines were measured. The results demonstrated that GPR55 inhibition using antagonists, CID16020046 or O-1918, significantly reduced leukocyte adherence in intestinal submucosal venules and decreased proinflammatory cytokine TNF-α and IL-6 production. These data suggest that GPR55 inhibition may be a novel therapeutic target for attenuating hyperinflammation during sepsis.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Hemorheology and MicrocirculationSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207