MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lamin A/C and cardiac diseases

2006· review· en· W2033608958 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Sylvius, Frédérique Tesson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaminCardiologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we will outline the most recent and significant findings on the role of the lamin A/C in cardiac diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Mutations in the lamin A/C gene (LMNA) are associated with numerous diseases involving the heart, skeletal muscles, bones, adipose and nervous tissues. LMNA is one of the most prevalent genes in dilated cardiomyopathy in which it is associated with a high risk of dysrhythmias, sudden death and heart failure. Lamins A and C interact with several proteins reflecting their multiple functions, some of which are likely still unknown. No abnormalities specific to dilated cardiomyopathy are emerging from investigations of striated muscles biopsies or fibroblasts from LMNA mutation carriers. An early diagnosis of the disease is difficult. Both animal and cellular models tend to confirm that lamins A and C play a key role in maintaining the nuclear architecture as well as in regulating transcription. SUMMARY: The cardiac phenotype associated to LMNA mutations is now much clearer, but the molecular mechanisms underlying cellular and tissue specific phenotypes are still puzzling. Systematic mutation screenings and cardioverter-defibrillator implantation have been recommended in patients with cardiac symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207