MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284681524 · doi:10.1111/bph.15919

Formylpeptide receptor 2: Nomenclature, structure, signalling and translational perspectives: IUPHAR review 35

2022· review· en· W4284681524 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cheng Xue Qin, Lucy V. Norling, Elizabeth A. Vecchio, Eoin Brennan, Lauren T. May, Denise Wootten, Catherine Godson, Mauro Perretti, Rebecca H. Ritchie

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicS100 Proteins and Annexins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilVersus ArthritisMedical Research Council CanadaScience Foundation IrelandNational Heart Foundation of AustraliaMedical Research CouncilBarts CharityMonash UniversityBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsReceptorInflammationChemotaxisRegulatorG protein-coupled receptorBiologyPharmacologyComputational biologyCell biologyChemistryImmunologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

). Initially identified as a low-affinity 'relative' of FPR1, FPR2 presents complex and diverse biology. For instance, it is activated by several classes of agonists (from peptides to proteins and lipid mediators) and displays diverse expression patterns on myeloid cells as well as epithelial cells and endothelial cells, to name a few. Over the last decade, the pharmacology of FPR2 has progressed from being considered a weak chemotactic receptor to a master-regulator of the resolution of inflammation, the second phase of the acute inflammatory response. We propose that exploitation of the biology of FPR2 offers innovative ways to rectify chronic inflammatory states and represents a viable avenue to develop novel therapies. Recent elucidation of FPR2 structure will facilitate development of the anti-inflammatory and pro-resolving drugs of next decade.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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 score0.956
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations64
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PharmacologySame topicS100 Proteins and AnnexinsFrench-language works237,207