RGS proteins: identifying new GAPs in the understanding of blood pressure regulation and cardiovascular function
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms that underlie BP (blood pressure) variation in humans and animal models may provide important clues for reducing the burden of uncontrolled hypertension in industrialized societies. High BP is often associated with increased signalling via G-protein-coupled receptors. Three members of the RGS (regulator of G-protein signalling) superfamily RGS2, RGS4 and RGS5 have been implicated in the attenuation of G-protein signalling pathways in vascular and cardiac myocytes, as well as cells of the kidney and autonomic nervous system. In the present review, we discuss the current state of knowledge regarding their differential expression and function in cardiovascular tissues, and the likelihood that one or more of these alleles are candidate hypertension genes. Together, findings from the studies described herein suggest that development of methods to modulate the expression and function of RGS proteins may be a possible strategy for the treatment and prevention of hypertension and cardiovascular 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it