MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019422953 · doi:10.1139/y04-126

Beyond angiogenesis: the cardioprotective potential of fibroblast growth factor-2

2004· review· en· W2019422953 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Karen A. Detillieux, Peter A. Cattini, Elissavet Kardami

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAngiogenesisFibroblast growth factorClinical trialBasic fibroblast growth factorTherapeutic angiogenesisDiseaseIntensive care medicineCardiologyPharmacologyInternal medicineGrowth factorNeovascularization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of cardiovascular research, a number of independent approaches have been explored to protect the heart from acute and chronic ischemic damage. Fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2) recently has received considerable attention with respect to its angiogenic potential. While therapeutic angiogenesis may serve to salvage chronically ischemic myocardium, more acute treatments are in demand to increase cardiac resistance to injury (preconditioning) and to guard against secondary injury after an acute ischemic insult. Here, we look beyond the angiogenic potential of FGF-2 and examine its acute cardioprotective activity as demonstrated under experimental conditions, both as an agent of a preconditioning-like response and for secondary injury prevention at the time of reperfusion. Factors to consider in moving to the clinical setting will be discussed, including issues of dosage, treatment duration, and routes of administration. Finally, issues of safety and clinical trial design will be considered. The prospect of such a multipotent growth factor having clinical usefulness opens the door to effective treatment of both acute and chronic ischemic heart disease, something well worth the attention of the cardiovascular community.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207