MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401364041 · doi:10.1002/cpz1.1113

Current Protocols: Alopecia Areata Mouse Models for Drug Efficacy and Mechanism Studies

2024· article· en· W4401364041 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Sundberg, Eddy H.C. Wang, Kevin J. McElwee

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Alopecia Areata Foundation
KeywordsAlopecia areataMechanism (biology)DrugMedicineDermatologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alopecia areata is the second most common form of hair loss in humans after androgenetic alopecia. Although a variety of animal models for alopecia areata have been described, currently the C3H/HeJ mouse model is the most commonly used and accepted. Spontaneous hair loss occurs in 15%-25% of older mice in which the lesions wax and wane, similar to the human disease, with alopecia being more common and severe in female mice. Full-thickness skin grafts from mice with spontaneous alopecia areata to young, normal-haired, histocompatible mice provide a highly reproducible model with progressive lesions that makes it useful for drug efficacy and mechanism-based studies. As alopecia areata is a cell-mediated autoimmune disease, transfer of cultured lymph node cells from affected mice to unaffected, histocompatible recipients also promotes disease development and provides an alternative, nonsurgical protocol. Protocols are presented to produce these models such that they can be used to study alopecia areata and to develop novel drug therapies. © 2024 The Author(s). Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Full-thickness skin grafts to reproducibly induce alopecia areata in C3H/HeJ mice Basic Protocol 2: Adoptive transfer of cultured lymphoid cells provides a nonsurgical method to induce alopecia areata in C3H/HeJ mice.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1060.056

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent ProtocolsSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207