Cardiovascular disease models: A game changing paradigm in drug discovery and screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Although investment in drug discovery and development has been sky-rocketing, the number of approved drugs has been declining. Cardiovascular toxicity due to therapeutic drug use claims the highest incidence and severity of adverse drug reactions in late-stage clinical development. Therefore, to address this issue, new, additional, replacement and combinatorial approaches are needed to fill the gap in effective drug discovery and screening. The motivation for developing accurate, predictive models is twofold: first, to study and discover new treatments for cardiac pathologies which are leading in worldwide morbidity and mortality rates; and second, to screen for adverse drug reactions on the heart, a primary risk in drug development. In addition to in vivo animal models, in vitro and in silico models have been recently proposed to mimic the physiological conditions of heart and vasculature. Here, we describe current in vitro, in vivo, and in silico platforms for modelling healthy and pathological cardiac tissues and their advantages and disadvantages for drug screening and discovery applications. We review the pathophysiology and the underlying pathways of different cardiac diseases, as well as the new tools being developed to facilitate their study. We finally suggest a roadmap for employing these non-animal platforms in assessing drug cardiotoxicity and safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".