MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209263307 · doi:10.2741/e12

The role of FGF-2 in renal fibrogenesis

2009· review· en· W3209263307 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank Strutz

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Bioscience-Elite · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFibroblast growth factorAutocrine signallingExtracellular matrixFibroblastCell biologyCytokineParacrine signallingKidneyChemistryCancer researchReceptorBiologyImmunologyEndocrinologyIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2) is a pleiotropic cytokine which exerts its effects via four different high affinity receptors (FGFR-1 to -4) which function as protein tyrosine kinases. In the kidney, FGF-2 is expressed in epithelial cells already during fetal development. During later stages, expression of the cytokine can be found in distal tubular epithelial cells, glomerular cells and few interstitial cells. Expression in fibroblasts is robustly upregulated in chronic kidney scarring pointing to an important role in fibrogenesis. Functional studies have demonstrated that FGF-2 exerts mainly proliferative effects on a variety of renal cell types. In regard to fibrogenesis, the expression and induction of proliferation in interstitial fibroblasts may be the most important function. FGF-2 is one of the key factors contributing to autocrine fibroblast proliferation in post-inflammatory matrix synthesis. In addition, FGF-2 facilitates epithelial to mesenchymal transition of tubular epithelial cells contributing early to an increase of matrix producing cells. However, the cytokine does not contribute directly to extracellular matrix synthesis. Still, many aspects of FGF-2 in renal fibrogenesis remains to be evaluated.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations53
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Bioscience-EliteSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207