MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacological basis of different targets for the treatment of atherosclerosis

2005· review· en· W1980307116 on OpenAlexafffund
Harjot K. Saini, Yan‐Jun Xu, Amarjit S. Arneja, Paramjit S. Tappia, Naranjan S. Dhalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsInflammationMedicineNitric oxideBlockadePlateletCoronary atherosclerosisOxidative stressPlatelet activationDrugPharmacologyImmunologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of atherosclerotic plaque is a highly regulated and complex process which occurs as a result of structural and functional alterations in endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells (SMCs), monocytes/macrophages, T-lymphocytes and platelets. The plaque formation in the coronary arteries or rupture of the plaque in the peripheral vasculature in latter stages of atherosclerosis triggers the onset of acute ischemic events involving myocardium. Although lipid lowering with statins has been established as an important therapy for the treatment of atherosclerosis, partially beneficial effects of statins beyond decreasing lipid levels has shifted the focus to develop newer drugs that can affect directly the process of atherosclerosis. Blockade of renin angiotensin system, augmentation of nitric oxide availability, reduction of Ca(2+) influx, prevention of oxidative stress as well as attenuation of inflammation, platelet activation and SMC proliferation have been recognized as targets for drug treatment to control the development, progression and management of atherosclerosis. A major challenge for future drug development is to formulate a combination therapy affecting different targets to improve the treatment of atherosclerosis.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular and Molecular MedicineSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207