MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129220122 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/47.4.782

Cardiac Troponin T Is Not Detected in Western Blots of Diseased Renal Tissue

2001· article· en· W2129220122 on OpenAlexaff
Gershwin K. Davis, Ralf Labugger, Jennifer E. Van Eyk, Fred S. Apple

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroponin complexSkeletal muscleMedicineTroponinCardiac muscleMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineTroponin TCardiologyDiseaseKidneyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent publications of consensus documents for the redefinition of myocardial infarction are heavily predicated on the role of increases in cardiac troponin (I or T) in serum in the setting of ischemic symptoms (1)(2)(3)). Cardiac troponin T (cTnT) has also been reported to be a predictor of mortality in patients with end stage renal disease (4)(5). An unexplained increase in the frequency of increased serum cTnT compared with serum cardiac troponin I has been described in these patients (6)(7). Explanations advanced for this difference include the possibility of nonspecific reactions in the cTnT assay or de novo expression of cTnT in skeletal muscle of renal diseased patients that is subsequently released into the serum (8). However, recent studies on skeletal muscle from renal disease patients have shown that although the two antibodies used in the cTnT diagnostic assay (M7 and M11.7) individually bind to muscle proteins, this would not cause false-positive results in the current-generation cTnT assay marketed by Roche (8). On the other hand, cardiac troponin I is not expressed in fetal or in healthy or diseased adult human skeletal tissue (9). An additional possibility is that cTnT or other immunoreactive proteins are being expressed in diseased renal tissue. In the current …

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207