MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043481283 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2015.00077

Therapeutic applications of circadian rhythms for the cardiovascular system

2015· review· en· W2043481283 on OpenAlexafffund
Elena V. Tsimakouridze, Faisal J. Alibhai, Tami A. Martino

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChronotherapy (sleep phase)Circadian rhythmChronobiologyMedicineDiseaseMechanism (biology)Sudden cardiac deathCircadian clockBioinformaticsNeuroscienceInternal medicineIntensive care medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cardiovascular system exhibits dramatic time-of-day dependent rhythms, for example the diurnal variation of heart rate, blood pressure, and timing of onset of adverse cardiovascular events such as heart attack and sudden cardiac death. Over the past decade, the circadian clock mechanism has emerged as a crucial factor regulating these daily fluctuations. Most recently, these studies have led to a growing clinical appreciation that targeting circadian biology offers a novel therapeutic approach toward cardiovascular (and other) diseases. Here we describe leading-edge therapeutic applications of circadian biology including (1) timing of therapy to maximize efficacy in treating heart disease (chronotherapy); (2) novel biomarkers discovered by testing for genomic, proteomic, metabolomic, or other factors at different times of day and night (chronobiomarkers); and (3) novel pharmacologic compounds that target the circadian mechanism with potential clinical applications (new chronobiology drugs). Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death worldwide and new approaches in the management and treatment of heart disease are clearly warranted and can benefit patients clinically.

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)0.001
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations69
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207