MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200553931 · doi:10.1002/path.5847

Activin <scp>B</scp> , a new player in kidney fibrosis? <sup>†</sup>

2021· article· en· W4200553931 on OpenAlexafffund
Joan C. Krepinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pathology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and DiabetesKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsDownregulation and upregulationFibrosisKidneyKidney diseaseFollistatinFibroblastCancer researchMedicineEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiologyCell cultureGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest has been growing in the role of activin A in both acute and chronic kidney disease. The role of other activins, however, remains relatively unexplored. In a recent issue of The Journal of Pathology, an elegant study by Sun et al identified upregulation of INHBB, the subunit of activin B, in three different models of kidney fibrosis, as well as in human kidneys with fibrosis. This increase was shown to be mediated by upregulation of the transcription factor Sox9. Using overexpression and inhibition strategies, the importance of INHBB to kidney interstitial fibroblast activation and kidney fibrosis was clearly shown. Importantly, INHBB and Sox9 are not appreciably expressed in normal tissue. These studies lay important groundwork for the further investigation of activin B targeting as a potential therapeutic approach to attenuate kidney fibrosis. © 2021 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PathologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207