Cardiomyocyte culture — an update on the in vitro cardiovascular model and future challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of any work with isolated cardiomyocytes depends on the reproducibility of cell isolation, because the cells do not divide. To date, there is no suitable in vitro model to study human adult cardiac cell biology. Although embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells are able to differentiate into cardiomyocytes in vitro, the efficiency of this process is low. Isolation and expansion of human cardiomyocyte progenitor cells from cardiac surgical waste or, alternatively, from fetal heart tissue is another option. However, to overcome various issues related to human tissue usage, especially ethical concerns, researchers use large- and small-animal models to study cardiac pathophysiology. A simple model to study the changes at the cellular level is cultures of cardiomyocytes. Although primary murine cardiomyocyte cultures have their own advantages and drawbacks, alternative strategies have been developed in the last two decades to minimise animal usage and interspecies differences. This review discusses the use of freshly isolated murine cardiomyocytes and cardiomyocyte alternatives for use in cardiac disease models and other related studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".