Stimulating Cardiogenesis as a Treatment for Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After myocardial injury, cardiomyocyte loss cannot be corrected by using currently available clinical treatments. In recent years, considerable effort has been made to develop cell-based cardiac repair therapies aimed at correcting for this loss. An exciting crop of recent studies reveals that inducing endogenous repair and proliferation of cardiomyocytes may be a viable option for regenerating injured myocardium. Here, we review current heart failure treatments, the state of cardiomyocyte renewal in mammals, and the molecular signals that stimulate cardiomyocyte proliferation. These signals include growth factors, intrinsic signaling pathways, microRNAs, and cell cycle regulators. Animal model cardiac regeneration studies reveal that modulation of exogenous and cell-intrinsic signaling pathways can induce reentry of adult cardiomyocytes into the cell cycle. Using direct myocardial injection, epicardial patch delivery, or systemic administration of growth molecules, these studies show that inducing endogenous cardiomyocytes to self-renew is an exciting and promising therapeutic strategy to treat cardiac injury in humans.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".