MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487383435 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2015.00021

Accentuating and Opposing Factors Leading to Development of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms Not Due to Genetic or Inherited Conditions

2015· review· en· W1487383435 on OpenAlexaff
Simon W. Rabkin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThoracic aortaPlasminMatrix metalloproteinaseThoracic aortic aneurysmAortic aneurysmAortaImmunologyCell biologyPathologyBiologyCardiologyInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding and unraveling the pathophysiology of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), a vascular disease with a potentially high-mortality rate, is one of the next frontiers in vascular biology. The processes leading to the formation of TAA, of unknown cause, so-called degenerative TAA, are complex. This review advances the concept of promoters and inhibitors of the development of degenerative TAA. Promoters of TAA development include age, blood pressure elevation, increased pulse pressure, neurohumeral factors increasing blood pressure, inflammation specifically IFN-γ, IL-1 β, IL-6, TNF-α, and S100 A12; the coagulation system specifically plasmin, platelets, and thrombin as well as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). SMAD-2 signaling and specific microRNAs modulate TAA development. The major inhibitors or factors opposing TAA development are the constituents of the aortic wall (elastic lamellae, collagen, fibulins, fibronectin, proteoglycans, and vascular smooth muscle cells), which maintain normal aortic dimensions in the face of aortic wall stress, specific tissue MMP inhibitors, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, protease nexin-1, and Syndecans. Increases in promoters and reductions in inhibitors expand the thoracic aorta leading to TAA formation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207