Neutrophil infiltrations compared between types 1 and 2 autoimmune pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
【背景】自己免疫性膵炎（Autoimmune pancreatitis; AIP）はわが国から提唱された疾患概念である．2011年に国際コンセンサス診断基準が作成されIgG4の関与するものを1型自己免疫性膵炎，好中球病変が主体とするものを2型自己免疫性膵炎と分類することとなった．2型自己免疫性膵炎の組織像として，好中球が膵管内腔や上皮に集簇し，管腔の破壊や閉塞をきたすことが特徴的である．2型自己免疫性膵炎は好中球が重要な役割を果たしていると言われているが，好中球が遊走されるメカニズムや自然免疫の関与については解明されておらず，1型自己免疫性膵炎との免疫学的相違は全く不明である．そこで今回我々は好中球遊走に関わるケモカインなどの差異について検討した．
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".