MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590394746 · doi:10.1161/atvb.33.suppl_1.a530

Abstract 530: Diurnal and Day-to-Day Variability of Endothelial Progenitor Cells

2013· article· en· W2590394746 on OpenAlexaff
Umberto Campia, Rana Saber, Yihua Liao, Kiang Liu, Mary MDermott, Douglas E. Vaughan, Donald M. Lloyd‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueArteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgenitor cellCD34MedicineCircadian rhythmDay to dayEndothelial progenitor cellFlow cytometryProgenitorCoefficient of variationInternal medicineAndrologyImmunologyBiologyStem cellCell biologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) may contribute to vascular repair. Whether a diurnal and/or day-to-day variability of circulating EPCs is physiologically present in healthy adults has not been investigated. Methods Eighteen healthy adults underwent EPCs count on three different time points: two in the same day between 7:00 and 8:30 and between 12:30 and 14:00; and one in another day between 7:00 and 8:30. EPCs (CD34+CD45lo; CD34+CD45loCD133+; and CD34+CD45loCD31+) were quantified using multi-parameter flow cytometry and an ISHAGE based gating strategy. Variability of EPCs was assessed by coefficient of variation (CV) between time points in the same day and in different days. Results Baseline participant characteristics are reported in table 1. EPCs measurements and CVs are reported in table 2. Conclusions In healthy middle-aged adults, circulating EPCs appear to have a marked diurnal variability but a low day-to-day variability. Further study is needed to understand the mechanisms of EPCs variability and its biological significance.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular BiologySame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207