MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284554957 · doi:10.1016/j.healun.2016.01.012

Epicardial infarct repair with bioinductive extracellular matrix promotes vasculogenesis and myocardial recovery

2016· article· en· W2284554957 on OpenAlexaff
H.E. Mewhort, Jeannine D. Turnbull, Alessandro Satriano, Kelvin Chow, Jacqueline Flewitt, Adin‐Cristian Andrei, David G. Guzzardi, Daniyil A. Svystonyuk, James A. White, Paul W.M. Fedak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyVasculogenesisIschemiaInternal medicineMyocardial fibrosisFibrosisExtracellular matrixContraction (grammar)Cardiac function curveVentricular remodelingHeart failureEndothelial stem cellChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infarcted myocardium can remodel after successful reperfusion, resulting in left ventricular dilation and heart failure. Epicardial infarct repair (EIR) using a bioinductive extracellular matrix (ECM) biomaterial is a novel surgical approach to promote endogenous myocardial repair and functional recovery after myocardial infarction. Using a pre-clinical porcine model of coronary ischemia-reperfusion, we assessed the effects of EIR on regional functional recovery, safety, and possible mechanisms of benefit. METHODS: An ECM biomaterial (CorMatrix ECM) was applied to the epicardium after 75 minutes of coronary ischemia in a porcine model. Following ischemia-reperfusion injury, animals were randomly assigned in 2:1 fashion to EIR (n = 8) or sham treatment (n = 4). Serial cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed on normal (n = 4) and study animals at baseline (1 week) and 6 weeks after treatment. Myocardial function and tissue characteristics were assessed. RESULTS: Functional myocardial recovery was significantly increased by EIR compared with sham treatment (change in regional myocardial contraction at 6 weeks, 28.6 ± 14.0% vs 4.2 ± 13.5% wall thickening, p < 0.05). Animals receiving EIR had reduced adhesions compared with animals receiving sham treatment (1.44 ± 0.51 vs 3.08 ± 0.89, p < 0.05). Myocardial fibrosis was not increased, and EIR did not cause myocardial constriction, as left ventricular compliance by passive pressure distention at matched volumes was similar between groups (13.9 ± 4.0 mm Hg in EIR group vs 16.0 ± 5.2 mm Hg in sham group, p = 0.61). Animals receiving EIR showed evidence of vasculogenesis in the region of functional recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the beneficial effects of successful reperfusion, EIR using a bioinductive ECM enhances myocardial repair and functional recovery. Clinical translation of EIR early after myocardial infarction as an adjunct to surgical revascularization may be warranted in the future.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations59
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Heart and Lung TransplantationSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207