MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889074368 · doi:10.1152/physrev.00048.2017

Role of Epigenetics in Cardiac Development and Congenital Diseases

2018· review· en· W2889074368 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Moore‐Morris, Patrick van Vliet, Grégor Andelfinger, Michel Pucéat

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersFondation LeducqAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsEpigeneticsEpigenesisChromatinBiologyHeart developmentBioinformaticsDNA methylationGeneticsNeuroscienceEmbryonic stem cellDNAGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The heart is the first organ to be functional in the fetus. Heart formation is a complex morphogenetic process regulated by both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms. Congenital heart diseases (CHD) are the most prominent congenital diseases. Genetics is not sufficient to explain these diseases or the impact of them on patients. Epigenetics is more and more emerging as a basis for cardiac malformations. This review brings the essential knowledge on cardiac biology of development. It further provides a broad background on epigenetics with a focus on three-dimensional conformation of chromatin. Then, we summarize the current knowledge of the impact of epigenetics on cardiac cell fate decision. We further provide an update on the epigenetic anomalies in the genesis of CHD.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations125
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological ReviewsSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207