Role of oxidative stress in cardiovascular diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In view of the critical role of intracellular Ca2 overload in the genesis of myocyte dysfunction and the ability of reactive oxygen species (ROS) to induce the intracellular Ca2+-overload, this article is concerned with analysis of the existing literature with respect to the role of oxidative stress in different types of cardiovascular diseases. OBSERVATIONS: Oxidative stress in cardiac and vascular myocytes describes the injury caused to cells resulting from increased formation of ROS and/or decreased antioxidant reserve. The increase in the generation of ROS seems to be due to impaired mitochondrial reduction of molecular oxygen, secretion of ROS by white blood cells, endothelial dysfunction, auto-oxidation of catecholamines, as well as exposure to radiation or air pollution. On the other hand, depression in the antioxidant reserve, which serves as a defense mechanism in cardiac and vascular myocytes, appears to be due to the exhaustion and/or changes in gene expression. The deleterious effects of ROS are mainly due to abilities of ROS to produce changes in subcellular organelles, and induce intracellular Ca2+-overload. Although the cause-effect relationship of oxidative stress with any of the cardiovascular diseases still remains to be established, increased formation of ROS indicating the presence of oxidative stress has been observed in a wide variety of experimental and clinical conditions. Furthermore, antioxidant therapy has been shown to exert beneficial effects in hypertension, atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, cardiomyopathies and congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence support the view that oxidative stress may play a crucial role in cardiac and vascular abnormalities in different types of cardiovascular diseases and that the antioxidant therapy may prove beneficial in combating these problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".