MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399747094 · doi:10.3791/54100

Myocardial Infarction in Neonatal Mice, A Model of Cardiac Regeneration

2016· article· en· W2399747094 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica N. Blom, Xiangru Lu, Paul Arnold, Qingping Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMedicineRegeneration (biology)CardiologyInfarctionVentricleInternal medicineLigationLeft coronary arteryFibrous jointIschemiaSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myocardial infarction induced by coronary artery ligation has been used in many animal models as a tool to study the mechanisms of cardiac repair and regeneration, and to define new targets for therapeutics. For decades, models of complete heart regeneration existed in amphibians and fish, but a mammalian counterpart was not available. The recent discovery of a postnatal window during which mice possess regenerative capabilities has led to the establishment of a mammalian model of cardiac regeneration. A surgical model of mammalian cardiac regeneration in the neonatal mouse is presented herein. Briefly, postnatal day 1 (P1) mice are anesthetized by isoflurane and placed on an ice pad to induce hypothermia. After the chest is opened, and the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) is visualized, a suture is placed around the LAD to inflict myocardial ischemia in the left ventricle. The surgical procedure takes 10-15 min. Visualizing the coronary artery is crucial for accurate suture placement and reproducibility. Myocardial infarction and cardiac dysfunction are confirmed by triphenyl-tetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining and echocardiography, respectively. Complete regeneration 21 days post myocardial infarction is verified by histology. This protocol can be used to as a tool to elucidate mechanisms of mammalian cardiac regeneration after myocardial infarction.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207