MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966320532 · doi:10.1177/1089253206288994

Angiogenesis for the Treatment of Inoperable Coronary Disease: The Future

2006· article· en· W1966320532 on OpenAlexaff
Frank W. Sellke, Roger J. Laham, Erik J. Suuronen, Marc Ruel

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTherapeutic angiogenesisAngiogenesisCoronary artery diseaseArteryCardiologyNeovascularizationInternal medicineDiseaseBypass graftingTherapeutic approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved treatment options and better management of cardiovascular risk factors have resulted in improved outcomes for patients suffering from severe coronary artery disease. However, coronary artery disease may be of such a diffuse and severe manner that repeated attempts at catheter-based interventions and coronary artery bypass grafting may be unsuccessful at restoring normal myocardial blood flow. It is the goal of therapeutic angiogenesis to restore perfusion to chronically ischemic myocardium using protein growth factors, gene therapy, or, more recently, cell-based therapy, without intervening on the epicardial coronary arteries. However, angiogenesis has not yet provided significant clinical benefit and is still reserved as an experimental treatment for patients who have failed conventional therapies. Once potential endogenous inhibitors of vascular development can be modified, angiogenesis may become more useful for therapeutic purposes. It is hoped that angiogenesis for therapeutic purposes will one day effectively re-create the potent natural processes of vascularization that every human being undergoes during growth and development and become a major modality for the treatment of coronary artery disease.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular AnesthesiaSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207