MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748199430 · doi:10.14740/cr578w

Feline Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Spontaneous Large Animal Model of Human HCM

2017· review· en· W2748199430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa M. Freeman, John E. Rush, Joshua A. Stern, Gordon S. Huggins, Martin S. Maron

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertrophic cardiomyopathyMedicineCATSPopulationDiseaseCardiologyInternal medicineCardiomyopathyHeart diseaseHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a common disease in pet cats, affecting 10-15% of the pet cat population. The similarity to human HCM, the rapid progression of disease, and the defined and readily determined endpoints of feline HCM make it an excellent natural model that is genotypically and phenotypically similar to human HCM. The Maine Coon and Ragdoll cats are particularly valuable models of HCM because of myosin binding protein-C mutations and even higher disease incidence compared to the overall feline population. The cat overcomes many of the limitations of rodent HCM models, and can provide enhanced translation of information from in vitro and induced small animal models to human clinical trials. Physicians and veterinarians working together in a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach can accelerate the discovery of more effective treatments for this and other cardiovascular diseases affecting human and veterinary patients. Cardiol Res. 2017;8(4):139-142 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr578w

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.362
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations68
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207