MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943804367 · doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.03.007

Putting the Heat on Cardiac Fibrosis

2019· editorial· en· W2943804367 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Basic to Translational Science · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Fibrosis and Remodeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAnschutz Medical Campus, University of ColoradoNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyCardiac fibrosisInternal medicineFibrosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ibrosis is a wound-healing process that is trig- gered by tissue injury or stress. Cardiac fibrosis is associated with adverse outcomes in several forms of heart failure (HF), including HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction, and genetically driven cardiomyopathies (1,2). Although the increased extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition that accompanies fibrotic responses may acutely serve to stabilize a focal area of myocardial damage, excessive, diffuse, or chronic activation of fibrosis can be deleterious to long-term cardiac function and patient survival. For example, fibrosis can increase the passive stiffness of the myocardium, which contributes to diastolic dysfunction (3,4), and can disrupt electrical conduction in the heart, which causes arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (5).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · 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