MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Therapeutic opportunities for cell cycle re-entry and cardiac regeneration

2004· review· en· W1975093427 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly M. Regula, Marek Rzeszutek, Delphine Baetz, Charit Seneviratne, Lorrie A. Kirshenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Research · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)Cell cycleBiologyMyocyteProgenitor cellCell biologyStem cellCardiac muscleCellCardiac myocyteAnatomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last two decades, considerable effort has been made to better understand putative regulators and molecular switches that govern the cell cycle in attempts to reactivate cell cycle progression of cardiac muscle. Rapid advancements on the field of stem cycle biology including evidence of cardiac progenitors within the adult myocardium itself and reports of cardiomyocyte DNA synthesis, which each suggest that the adult myocardium may in fact have the capacity for de novo myocyte regeneration. Augmenting cardiomyocyte number by targeting specific cell cycle regulatory genes or by stimulating cardiac progenitor cells to differentiate into cardiac muscle may be of therapeutic value in repopulating the adult myocardium with functionally active cells in patients with end-stage heart failure. Advancements in the area of cardiomyocyte cell cycle control and regeneration and their therapeutic potential are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.141 · 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
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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular ResearchSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207