MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135284587 · doi:10.1139/y2012-085

High cholesterol diet effects on ischemia–reperfusion injury of the heart

2012· review· en· W2135284587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Verónica D’Annunzio, Martín Donato, Bruno Buchholz, Virginia Pérez, Verónica Miksztowicz, Gabriela Berg, Ricardo J. Gelpi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIschemiaReperfusion injuryInternal medicineCholesterolCardiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of morbi-mortality in developed countries. Both ischemia-reperfusion injury and mechanisms of cardioprotection have been studied for more than 50 years. It is known that the physiopathological mechanism of myocardial ischemia involves several factors that are closely related to its development, of which hypercholesterolemia is one of the main ones. Therefore, the objective of this review was to elucidate the effects of a high-cholesterol diet on normal ventricular function and ischemia-reperfusion injury associated phenomenon such as post-ischemic ventricular dysfunction (stunned myocardium). Although there exist many studies considering several aspects of this physiopathological entity, the majority were carried out on normal animals. Thus, experiments carried out on hypercholesterolemic models are controversial, in particular those evaluating different mechanisms of cardioprotection such as ischemic preconditioning and postconditioning, and cardioprotection granted by drugs such as statins, which apart from exerting a lipid-lowering effect, exert pleiotropic effects providing cardioprotection against ischemia-reperfusion injury. These controversial results concerning the mechanisms of cardioprotection vary according to quality, composition, and time of administration of the high-cholesterol diet, as well as the species used in each experiment. Thus, to compare the results it is necessary to take all of these variables into account, since they can change the obtained results.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207