MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087981129 · doi:10.1586/erc.11.178

Are endothelial progenitor cells a prognostic factor in patients with heart failure?

2012· review· en· W2087981129 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Carolina Alba, Diego Delgado, Vivek Rao, Stephen D. Walter, Gordon Guyatt, Heather J. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureVasculogenesisProgenitor cellInternal medicineEndothelial dysfunctionCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseCardiomyopathyDiseaseDysfunctional familyStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the last two decades, endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) have been proposed as a novel prognostic marker and potential therapeutic target in patients with cardiovascular diseases. EPCs are involved in the process of adult vasculogenesis and repair of dysfunctional endothelium. Endothelial dysfunction has been documented in the peripheral and coronary arteries of chronic heart failure (HF) patients, and has proved to be an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality in HF patients. This has led researchers to analyze the association of EPCs and disease severity in HF patients. In this paper, we review studies analyzing the prognostic role of EPCs in patients with HF. Through a systematic search, we identified 14 relevant studies. Only one study analyzed mortality as an outcome; the others evaluated the association between EPC levels and patients' characteristics. Overall, results were inconsistent and suggested that levels of EPCs may vary according to factors such as disease severity, underlying cause of cardiomyopathy and medical therapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207