MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313910178 · doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00166.2022

Who’s talking to whom: microbiome-enteric nervous system interactions in early life

2023· review· en· W4313910178 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia Ganz, Elyanne M. Ratcliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeMcMaster UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnteric nervous systemBiologyMicrobiomeNeuroscienceImmune systemZebrafishNervous systemDiseaseIntestinal MicrobiomeHirschsprung's diseaseGut microbiomeImmunologyBioinformaticsMedicinePathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The enteric nervous system (ENS) is the intrinsic nervous system of the gastrointestinal tract (GI) and regulates important GI functions, including motility, nutrient uptake, and immune response. The development of the ENS begins during early organogenesis and continues to develop once feeding begins, with ongoing plasticity into adulthood. There has been increasing recognition that the intestinal microbiota and ENS interact during critical periods, with implications for normal development and potential disease pathogenesis. In this review, we focus on insights from mouse and zebrafish model systems to compare and contrast how each model can serve in elucidating the bidirectional communication between the ENS and the microbiome. At the end of this review, we further outline implications for human disease and highlight research innovations that can lead the field forward.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver PhysiologySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207