MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060603638 · doi:10.1517/14728222.10.2.239

Natriuretic peptides as therapeutic targets

2006· review· en· W2060603638 on OpenAlexaff
Suhayla Mukaddam‐Daher

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatriuretic peptideBrain natriuretic peptideNPR1NeprilysinNPR2Internal medicineAtrial natriuretic peptideHeart failureMedicinePharmacologyEndocrinologyChemistryBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natriuretic peptides (atrial natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide and C-type natriuretic peptide) are cardiac and vascular peptides with vasodilatory, diuretic, natriuretic, anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic and antimitogenic actions. Natriuretic peptides are implicated in normal pressure and volume homeostasis and in the defence against excessive increases in overload-related factors, vasopressive and cardiotoxic factors and their impact on the heart, blood vessels and brain. Genetic manipulation studies confirmed the importance of natriuretic peptides in these functions. Natriuretic peptides are metabolised by NPR-C (clearance receptors) and by enzymatic degradation by neutral endopeptidase. Natriuretic peptide levels (mainly brain natriuretic peptide) correlate with left ventricular hypertrophy and with the severity of heart failure, and are reduced by effective treatment, thus used as diagnostic and prognostic tools. Based on the multiple protective effects of natriuretic peptides, pharmacological therapy has been approved and includes potentiating natriuretic peptide levels by intravenous infusion or by inhibition of endogenous natriuretic peptide degradation. Because each approach has its limitations, the field remains open for improvement.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic TargetsSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207