MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Endothelial function and dysfunction. Part I

2005· review· en· W2309975949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndothelial dysfunctionFunction (biology)EndotheliumBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineRisk analysis (engineering)Computational biologyInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An enormous number of studies in the last two decades have been devoted to investigating the role of the endothelium in cardiovascular diseases. Nonetheless, the optimal methodology for investigating the multifaceted aspects of endothelial dysfunction is still under debate. Biochemical markers, molecular genetic tests and invasive and non-invasive tools with and without pharmacological and physiological stimuli have been introduced. Furthermore newer pharmacological tools have been proposed. However, the application of these methodologies should fulfil a number of requirements in order to provide conclusive answers in this area of research. Thus, the most relevant methodological issues in the research on endothelial function and dysfunction are summarized in this paper.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.245 · 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