MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Biological Tools to Study Claudins in the Male Reproductive Tract

2011· article· en· W341100859 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel G. Cyr, Évemie Dubé, Julie Dufresne, Mary Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpididymisClaudinTight junctionBiologyReproductive tractPathologicalCell biologyAndrologySpermMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is estimated that between 12 and 15% of couples are infertile. More than half of these are related to problems associated with male reproductive dysfunction. Of those, 40% occur from idiopathic or unexplained causes. While spermatozoa are formed in the testis, testicular spermatozoa are immature and cannot swim or fertilize. These critical functions are acquired as spermatozoa transit through the epididymis in the specific luminal environment created in part by the tight junctions of the blood-epididymis barrier. To understand the normal and pathological conditions attributable to human and animal epididymal function, we have needed to develop biological tools to characterize the physiological, cellular, and molecular functions of tight junctions and claudins (Cldns) in the epididymis. We have shown that by developing epididymal cell lines we have gained valuable insight into the functions of epididymal Cldns, the regulation of the Cldn1 gene and how these can be mistargeted in infertile men. Here we describe some of the techniques that have been used to address these critical aspects of epididymal Cldns.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207