Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idiosyncratic nature of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (IDILI) makes mechanistic studies very difficult, and little is know with certainty. However, the fact that the IDILI caused by some drugs is associated with specific HLA genotypes provides strong evidence that it is mediated by the adaptive immune system. This is also consistent with the histology and the general characteristics of IDILI. However, there are other mechanistic hypotheses. Various in vitro and in vivo systems have been used to test hypotheses. Two other hypotheses are mitochondrial injury and inhibition of the bile salt export pump. It is possible that these mechanisms are responsible for some cases of IDILI, or that these mechanisms are complementary and are involved in initiating an immune response. In general it is believed that the initiation of an immune response requires activation of antigen presenting cells by molecules such as danger-associated molecular pattern molecules (DAMPs). An attractive hypothesis for the mechanism by which DAMPs induce an immune response is through the activation of inflammasomes. The dominant immune response in the liver is immune tolerance, and it is only when immune tolerance fails that significant liver injury occurs. Consistent with this concept, an animal model was developed in which immune checkpoint inhibition unmasked the ability of drugs to cause liver injury. Although it appears that the liver damage is mediated by the adaptive immune system, an innate immune response is required for an adaptive immune response. The innate immune response is not dependent on specific HLA genes or T cell receptors and may occur in most patients and animals treated with a drug that can cause IDILI. Studies of the subclinical innate immune response to drugs may provide important mechanistic clues and provide a method to screen drugs for their potential to cause IDILI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".