MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417244290 · doi:10.1093/cvr/cvw159

Endothelial cell–cardiomyocyte crosstalk in diabetic cardiomyopathy

2016· review· en· W2417244290 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Wan, Brian Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDiabetic cardiomyopathyDiabetes mellitusMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiomyopathyHeart diseaseCardiologyMyocyteDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of diabetes is increasing globally, with cardiovascular disease accounting for a substantial number of diabetes-related deaths. Although atherosclerotic vascular disease is a primary reason for this cardiovascular dysfunction, heart failure in patients with diabetes might also be an outcome of an intrinsic heart muscle malfunction, labelled diabetic cardiomyopathy. Changes in cardiomyocyte metabolism, which encompasses a shift to exclusive fatty acid utilization, are considered a leading stimulus for this cardiomyopathy. In addition to cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells (ECs) make up a significant proportion of the heart, with the majority of ATP generation in these cells provided by glucose. In this review, we will discuss the metabolic machinery that drives energy metabolism in the cardiomyocyte and EC, its breakdown following diabetes, and the research direction necessary to assist in devising novel therapeutic strategies to prevent or delay diabetic heart disease.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations84
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207