MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of osteoprotegerin (OPG) in fibrosis: its potential as a biomarker and/or biological target for the treatment of fibrotic diseases

2021· review· en· W3173514551 on OpenAlexaff
Habibie Habibie, Adhyatmika Adhyatmika, Dedmer Schaafsma, Barbro N. Melgert

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology & Therapeutics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBone Metabolism and Diseases
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoprotegerinFibrosisRANKLExtracellular matrixMedicineBiomarkerCancer researchPathologyReceptorActivator (genetics)Internal medicineBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fibrosis is defined by excessive formation and accumulation of extracellular matrix proteins, produced by myofibroblasts, that supersedes normal wound healing responses to injury and results in progressive architectural remodelling. Fibrosis is often detected in advanced disease stages when an organ is already severely damaged and can no longer function properly. Therefore, there is an urgent need for reliable and easily detectable markers to identify and monitor fibrosis onset and progression as early as possible; this will greatly facilitate the development of novel therapeutic strategies. Osteoprotegerin (OPG), a well-known regulator of bone extracellular matrix and most studied for its role in regulating bone mass, is expressed in various organs and functions as a decoy for receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) and tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL). Recently, OPG has been linked to fibrosis and fibrogenesis, and has been included in a panel of markers to diagnose liver fibrosis. Multiple studies now suggest that OPG may be a general biomarker suitable for detection of fibrosis and/or monitoring the impact of fibrosis treatment. This review summarizes our current understanding of the role of OPG in fibrosis and will discuss its potential as a biomarker and/or novel therapeutic target for fibrosis.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicBone Metabolism and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207