Growth factor-induced therapeutic neovascularization for ischaemic vascular disease: time for a re-evaluation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Therapeutic angiogenesis and arteriogenesis represent an alternative treatment modality for patients with advanced ischaemic coronary or peripheral artery occlusive disease, who are unsuitable for standard revascularization procedures. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: Proof-of-concept evidence for therapeutic growth factor, both gene and protein-mediated neovascularization was provided in animal models of chronic myocardial and hindlimb ischaemia. Early human, phase I, trials utilizing the prototypical growth factor families, vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor, documented safety and suggested improvements in anginal symptoms and functional status. Large, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II/III clinical trials have, however, yielded variable results as such studies have suffered from significant limitations in therapeutic approach or design, which limits the ability to draw firm conclusions. SUMMARY: Future trials must incorporate robust delivery strategies and address issues of study design including proper patient selection. Laboratory-based refinements in therapy, including a focus on the promotion of arteriogenesis and the modification of patient 'endotheliopathy', will all further enhance the potential of therapeutic neovascularization strategies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".