MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139289160 · doi:10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00708-3

Biological activities of fibroblast growth factor-2 in the adult myocardium

2002· review· en· W2139289160 on OpenAlexaff
Karen A. Detillieux

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Research · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibroblast growth factorFibroblastFibroblast growth factor 23Cell biologyMedicineInternal medicineBiologyEndocrinologyBiochemistryIn vitroReceptorCalcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2) is a potent regulator of many cellular functions and phenomena, including cell proliferation, differentiation, survival, adhesion, migration, motility and apoptosis, and processes such as limb formation, wound healing, tumorigenesis, angiogenesis, vasculogenesis and blood vessel remodeling. In the adult myocardium, FGF-2 is expressed by various cell types, including cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells. The biological effects of FGF-2 in the myocardium are mediated by the high-affinity tyrosine kinase receptor FGFR-1, the major FGF receptor in the heart. Here, we give an overview of current insights into the multiple roles of FGF-2 in the myocardium, as they pertain to two basic phenomena: ischemia-reperfusion injury and cardiac hypertrophy. The first category includes roles for FGF-2 in cardioprotection, the inflammatory response, angiogenesis and vascular remodeling, while the second includes myocyte hypertrophy, fibrosis, and gap junction functioning (conduction). Given the strong evidence for FGF-2 as both a cardioprotective and angiogenic agent, the therapeutic potential of FGF-2 in the ischemic myocardium is discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations200
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular ResearchSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207