MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121797937 · doi:10.3390/v13020161

Interactions of Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 with the Lung Endothelium: Similarities, Differences, and Implications for Therapy

2021· review· en· W3121797937 on OpenAlexafffund
Elyse Latreille, Warren L. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCalifornia HIV/AIDS Research Program
KeywordsPathogenesisImmunologyLungEndotheliumPandemicVirusCoagulopathyCoronavirusImmune systemInflammationBiologyInfluenza A virusMedicineVirologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PathologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory viruses such as influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are a constant threat to public health given their ability to cause global pandemics. Infection with either virus may lead to aberrant host responses, such as excessive immune cell recruitment and activation, dysregulated inflammation, and coagulopathy. These may contribute to the development of lung edema and respiratory failure. An increasing amount of evidence suggests that lung endothelial cells play a critical role in the pathogenesis of both viruses. In this review, we discuss how infection with influenza or SARS-CoV-2 may induce endothelial dysfunction. We compare the effects of infection of these two viruses, how they may contribute to pathogenesis, and discuss the implications for potential treatment. Understanding the differences between the effects of these two viruses on lung endothelial cells will provide important insight to guide the development of therapeutics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207