MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334671282 · doi:10.2459/jcm.0b013e3283212ecd

Jumonji is a potential regulatory factor mediating nitric oxide-induced modulation of cardiac hypertrophy

2009· article· en· W2334671282 on OpenAlexaff
Simon W. Rabkin, Shaun S. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitric oxideMuscle hypertrophyDownregulation and upregulationGene expressionGeneCardiac hypertrophyCell biologyTranscription factorBiologyMedicineEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Jumonji (jmj) is the prototypical member of the jmj domain-containing protein family. It regulates the expression of several genes, in particular genes involved in cardiac cell growth in the embryonic heart. The function of jmj in the mature or developed heart, however, is unclear. RESULTS: We propose that JMJ domain 2A family may be involved in modulating the development of cardiac hypertrophy through interactions with cell cycle-regulatory proteins, specifically retinoblastoma protein, cyclin D and transcription factor E2F, that lead to cell growth. Because nitric oxide can block the development of cardiac hypertrophy and upregulate both jmj gene and protein expression, we propose that jmj is a novel regulatory factor mediating nitric oxide-induced modulation of cardiac hypertrophy. CONCLUSION: Jmj may be a critical, previously unrecognized factor that 'counteracts' the development of cardiac hypertrophy. Biotechnology approaches to increase its expression may be a potential therapeutic strategy to mitigate the increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with cardiac hypertrophy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207