From cell phenotype to epigenetic mechanisms: new insights into regenerating myocardium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The self-regenerating property of the adult myocardium is not a new discovery. Even though we could not confirm that the adult myocardium is a post-mitotic tissue, we should consider that its plasticity is extremely low. Studies are still in progress to decipher the mechanisms underlying the abovementioned potential fetal features of the adult heart. The modest results of several clinical trials based on the transplantation of millions of autologous stem cells into the dysfunctional heart have confirmed that the cross-talk of different signals, such as the microenvironment, promotes the regeneration of adult myocardium. Recent scientific evidence has revealed that cellular cross-talk does not depend on the action of a single cell phenotype. It is conceivable that the limited turnover of cardiomyocytes is ensured by the interplay of adult cardiac cells in response to environmental changes. The epigenetic state of a cell serves as a dynamic interface between the environment and phenotype. The epigenetic modulation of the adult cardiac cells by natural active compounds encourages further studies to improve myocardial plasticity. In this review, we will highlight the most relevant studies demonstrating the epigenetic modulation of myocardial regeneration without the use of stem cell transplantation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".