MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903916942 · doi:10.1111/imr.12724

Primary immunodeficiencies reveal the essential role of tissue neutrophils in periodontitis

2018· review· en· W2903916942 on OpenAlexaff
Lakmali M. Silva, Laurie Brenchley, Niki M. Moutsopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunological Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBlood disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPeriodontitisLeukocyte adhesion deficiencyLeukocyte extravasationAggressive periodontitisInflammationBiologyImmunologyExtravasationMendelian inheritanceGingivitisConnective tissuePathologyMedicineGeneticsGeneImmune systemDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Periodontitis is a common human inflammatory disease. In this condition, microbiota trigger excessive inflammation in oral mucosal tissues surrounding the dentition, resulting in destruction of tooth-supporting structures (connective tissue and bone). While susceptibility factors for common forms of periodontitis are not clearly understood, studies in patients with single genetic defects reveal a critical role for tissue neutrophils in disease susceptibility. Indeed, various genetic defects in the development, egress from the bone marrow, chemotaxis, and extravasation are clearly linked to aggressive/severe periodontitis at an early age. Here, we provide an overview of genetic defects in neutrophil biology that are linked to periodontitis. In particular, we focus on the mechanisms underlying Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I, the prototypic Mendelian defect of impaired neutrophil extravasation and severe periodontitis.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations102
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunological ReviewsSame topicBlood disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207