MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Targeting Mast Cells as a Viable Therapeutic Option in Endometriosis

2017· article· en· W4313465017 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueEMJ Reproductive Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisMast cellStromal cellLesionDiseaseFibrosisInfertilityWound healingInflammationPathologyBioinformaticsImmunologyPregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometriosis is a chronic condition that affects ˜10% of young women worldwide. Pain and infertility are the two most common features of the disease. The condition appears to be sex hormone-dependent, although a subset of females with the condition still experience symptoms post-menopause. The aetiology of endometriosis induction still remains elusive, and surgery to remove the lesions often fails to cure the condition, as the lesions often reappear. The lesions contain stromal cells, blood vessels, nerves, and numerous mast cells. In some respects, endometrial lesions resemble a chronic fibrotic scar-like tissue that does not resolve. Studies in other fibrotic abnormal healing conditions have revealed that targeting mast cells, as a central component of what is called a ‘neural–mast cell–fibroblast’ axis, by repurposing asthma drugs can prevent induction of the abnormal healing phenotype. Given the similarities between conditions with abnormal healing phenotypes and endometrial lesions, it is postulated that taking a similar approach to target endometrial lesion mast cells could exert a benefit for patients with endometriosis. This review also outlines approaches to assess the likelihood that targeting mast cells could lead to clinical trials using such ‘repurposed’ mast cell targeted drugs.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEMJ Reproductive Health→Same topicEndometriosis Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→