MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212783954 · doi:10.1136/bmjos-2021-100240

Protocol for a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological targeting of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in experimental renal injury

2021· article· en· W3212783954 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPeroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research BoardCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsHealth Service ExecutiveWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsMedicinePeroxisome proliferator-activated receptorAcute kidney injuryMeta-analysisKidney diseaseSystematic reviewBioinformaticsPublication biasInternal medicinePharmacologyMEDLINEReceptorBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Impaired lipid metabolism in the renal tubule plays a prominent role in the progression of renal fibrosis following acute kidney injury (AKI) and in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are promising druggable targets to mitigate renal fibrosis by redirecting metabolism, including restoration of fatty acid oxidation (FAO) capacity. We aim to synthesise evidence from preclinical studies of pharmacological PPAR targeting in experimental renal injury, and inform the design of future studies evaluating PPAR-mediated restoration of FAO in AKI and CKD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Studies reporting on the impact of pharmacological PPAR modulation in animal models of renal injury will be collected from MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase and Web of Science databases. Predefined eligibility criteria will exclude studies testing medications which are not specific ligands of one or more PPARs and studies involving multimodal pharmacological treatment. The Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation risk of bias tool and Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Experimental Studies checklist will be used to assess quality of the included studies. Data extraction will be followed by a narrative synthesis of the data and meta-analysis where feasible. Analysis will be performed separately for AKI, CKD and renal transplant models. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on study design characteristics, PPAR isotype(s) targeted, and classes of PPAR-targeting medications used. Risk of publication bias will be assessed using funnel plotting, Egger's regression and trim-and-fill analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021265550.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.349 · 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