MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125511945 · doi:10.3892/ijmm.2021.4856

Role of long non‑coding RNAs and related epigenetic mechanisms in liver fibrosis (Review)

2021· review· en· W3125511945 on OpenAlexafffund
Niladri Ganguly, Subrata Chakrabarti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchIndian Council of Medical ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsEpigeneticsBiologymicroRNAFibrosisCancer researchBioinformaticsDNA methylationRegulation of gene expressionGene expressionGeneComputational biologyGeneticsMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liver fibrosis is one of the major liver pathologies affecting patients worldwide. It results from an improper tissue repair process following liver injury or inflammation. If left untreated, it ultimately leads to liver cirrhosis and liver failure. Long non‑coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been implicated in a wide variety of diseases. They can regulate gene expression and modulate signaling. Some of the lncRNAs promote, while others inhibit liver fibrosis. Similarly, other epigenetic processes, such as methylation and acetylation regulate gene transcription and can modulate gene expression. Notably, there are several regulatory associations of lncRNAs with other epigenetic processes. A major mechanism of action of long non‑coding RNAs is to competitively bind to their target microRNAs (miRNAs or miRs), which in turn affects miRNA availability and bioactivity. In the present review, the role of lncRNAs and related epigenetic processes contributing to liver fibrosis is discussed. Finally, various potential therapeutic approaches targeting lncRNAs and related epigenetic processes, which are being considered as possible future treatment targets for liver fibrosis are identified.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular MedicineSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207