MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223578537 · doi:10.3390/cells11081301

Emerging Evidence of Noncoding RNAs in Bleb Scarring after Glaucoma Filtration Surgery

2022· review· en· W4223578537 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Yu, Alex Tam, Robert M. Campbell, Neil Renwick

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBleb (medicine)GlaucomaMedicineLong non-coding RNABiologyTrabeculectomyOphthalmologyRNAGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To conduct a narrative review of research articles on the potential anti- and pro-fibrotic mechanisms of noncoding RNAs following glaucoma filtration surgery. METHODS: Keyword searches of PubMed, and Medline databases were conducted for articles discussing post-glaucoma filtration surgeries and noncoding RNA. Additional manual searches of reference lists of primary articles were performed. RESULTS: Fifteen primary research articles were identified. Four of the included papers used microarrays and qRT-PCR to identify up- or down-regulated microRNA (miRNA, miR) profiles and direct further study, with the remainder focusing on miRNAs or long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) based on previous work in other organs or disease processes. The results of the reviewed papers identified miR-26a, -29b, -139, -155, and -200a as having anti-fibrotic effects. In contrast, miRs-200b and -216b may play pro-fibrotic roles in filtration surgery fibrosis. lncRNAs including H19, NR003923, and 00028 have demonstrated pro-fibrotic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Noncoding RNAs including miRNAs and lncRNAs are emerging and promising therapeutic targets in the prevention of post-glaucoma filtration surgery 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207