Animal models of catheter-induced intimal hyperplasia in type 1 and type 2 diabetes and the effects of pharmacologic intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes is a complex disorder characterized by impaired insulin formation, release or action (insulin resistance), elevated blood glucose, and multiple long-term complications. It is a common endocrine disorder of humans and is associated with abnormalities of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. There are two forms of diabetes, classified as type 1 and type 2. In type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemia is due to an absolute lack of insulin, whereas in type 2 diabetes, hyperglycemia is due to a relative lack of insulin and insulin resistance. More than 90% of people with diabetes have type 2 with varied degrees of insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is often associated with impaired insulin secretion, and hyperglycemia is a common feature in both types of diabetes, but failure to make a distinction between the types of diabetes in different animal models has led to confusion in the literature. This is particularly true in relation to cardiovascular disease in the presence of diabetes and especially the response to vascular injury, in which there are major differences between the two types of diabetes. Animal models do not completely mimic the clinical disease seen in humans. Animal models are at best analogies of the pathologic process they are designed to represent. The focus of this review is an analysis of intimal hyperplasia following catheter-induced vascular injury, including factors that may complicate comparisons between different animal models or between in vitro and in vivo studies. We examine the variables, pitfalls, and caveats that follow from the manner of induction of the injury and the diabetic state of the animal. The efficacy of selected antidiabetic drugs in inhibiting the development of the hyperplastic response is also 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".