MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099132326 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.2000574

Regulatory T Cells in Angiogenesis

2020· review· en· W3099132326 on OpenAlexaff
Zala Lužnik, Sonia Anchouche, Reza Dana, Jia Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAngiogenesisInflammationContext (archaeology)Immune systemHomeostasisImmunologyRegeneration (biology)PathologicalBiologyCancer researchMedicineCell biologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are crucial mediators of immune homeostasis. They regulate immune response by suppressing inflammation and promoting self-tolerance. In addition to their immunoregulatory role, a growing body of evidence highlights the dynamic role of Tregs in angiogenesis, the process of forming new blood vessels. Although angiogenesis is critically important for normal tissue regeneration, it is also a hallmark of pathological processes, including malignancy and chronic inflammation. Interestingly, the role of Tregs in angiogenesis has been shown to be highly tissue- and context-specific and as a result can yield either pro- or antiangiogenic effects. For these reasons, there is considerable interest in determining the molecular underpinnings of Treg-mediated modulation of angiogenesis in different disease states. The present review summarizes the role of Tregs in angiogenesis and mechanisms by which Tregs regulate angiogenesis and discusses how these mechanisms differ in homeostatic and pathological settings.

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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations83
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207