MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064847057 · doi:10.1002/biof.17

Contributions of hyperhomocysteinemia to atherosclerosis: Causal relationship and potential mechanisms

2009· review· en· W2064847057 on OpenAlexaff
Ji Zhou, Richard C. Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueBioFactors · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperhomocysteinemiaMedicineInternal medicineHomocysteineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) is considered an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, including ischemic heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease. Mutations in the enzymes and/or nutritional deficiencies in B vitamins required for homocysteine metabolism can induce HHcy. Studies using genetic- or diet-induced animal models of HHcy have demonstrated a causal relationship between HHcy and accelerated atherosclerosis. Oxidative stress and activation of proinflammatory factors have been proposed to explain the atherogenic effects of HHcy. Recently, HHcy-induced endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and the unfolded protein response (UPR) have been found to play a role in HHcy-induced atherogenesis. This review will focus on the cellular mechanisms of HHcy in atherosclerosis from both in vivo and in vitro studies. The contributions of ER stress and the UPR in atherogenesis will be emphasized. Results from recent clinical trials assessing the cardiovascular risk of lowering total plasma homocysteine levels and new findings examining the atherogenic role of HHcy in wild-type C57BL/6J mice will also be discussed. (c) 2009 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations131
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioFactorsSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207