MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060096807 · doi:10.4061/2011/836806

Postmyocardial Infarct Remodeling and Heart Failure: Potential Contributions from Pro- and Antiaging Factors

2011· article· en· W2060096807 on OpenAlexaff
Halliday Idikio

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research and Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionVentricular remodelingStem cellHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyRegeneration (biology)BioinformaticsBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myocardial infarction and adverse postinfarct remodeling in older persons lead to poor outcome and need greater understanding of the contributions of age-related factors on abnormal cardiac function and management. In this perspective, how normal aging processes could contribute to the events of post-myocardial infarction and remodeling is reviewed. Post-myocardial infarction and remodeling involve cardiomechanical factors and neurohormonal response. Many factors prevent or accelerate aging including immunosenescence, recruitment and regeneration of stem cells, telomere shortening, oxidative damage, antiaging hormones klotho and melatonin, nutrition, and Sirtiun protein family, and these factors could affect post-MI remodeling and heart failure. Interest in stem cell repair of myocardial infarcts to mitigate post-MI remodeling needs more information on aging of stem cells, and potential effects on stem cell use in infarct repair. Integrating genomics and proteomics methods may help find clinically novel therapy in the management of post-MI remodeling and heart failure in aged individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology Research and PracticeSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207