MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392948090 · doi:10.1016/j.healun.2024.03.006

Applications of transcriptomics in ischemia reperfusion research in lung transplantation

2024· review· en· W4392948090 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamie E. Jeon, Yasal Rajapaksa, Shaf Keshavjee, Mingyao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity Health Network FoundationGovernment of CanadaUniversity Health Network
KeywordsTranscriptomeLung transplantationmicroRNALungReperfusion injuryIschemiaTransplantationBioinformaticsMedicineComputational biologyBiologyGene expressionGeneInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury contributes to primary graft dysfunction, a major cause of early mortality after lung transplantation. Transcriptomics uses high-throughput techniques to profile the RNA transcripts within a sample and provides a unique view of the mechanisms underlying various biological processes. This review aims to highlight the applications of transcriptomics in lung IR injury studies, which have thus far revealed inflammatory responses to be the major event activated by IR, identified potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets, and investigated the mechanisms of therapeutic interventions. Ex vivo lung perfusion, together with advanced bioinformatic and transcriptomic techniques, including single-cell RNA-sequencing, microRNA profiling, and multi-omics, continue to expand the capabilities of transcriptomics. In the future, the construction of biospecimen banks and the promotion of international collaborations among clinicians and researchers have the potential to advance our understanding of IR injury and improve the management of lung transplant recipients.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.380 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Heart and Lung TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207