Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) were initially described in 1997, though their properties and roles are still being investigated and debated. Their core characteristics were identified as circulating cells displaying a variety of cell surface proteins thought to be endothelial specific, the ability to grow in culture, and the ability to localize and promote vascular growth at sites of ischemia.1 Very soon thereafter, studies suggested an inverse relationship between the number of circulating EPCs and vascular risk factors in patients with stable ischemic heart disease2 and, later, in those with acute or stable stroke.3 Subsequent reports suggested that the use of statins could increase EPC numbers in patients with stable coronary artery disease, though this observation was not confirmed in a larger randomized trial.4 Other data suggested that infusion of EPCs after an acute myocardial infarction could result in improvement in cardiac function and decreased mortality.5 The initial excitement, not surprisingly, prompted numerous investigations on EPCs. However, despite 13 years having passed since the landmark article in Science ,1 and having done further, more detailed, analyses on EPCs, we are still …
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".