MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974670918

Emerging role of angiogenesis in adaptive and maladaptive right ventricular remodeling in pulmonary hypertension

2018· article· en· W2974670918 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea L. Frump, Sébastien Bonnet, Vinicio A. de Jesús Pérez, Tim Lahm

Bibliographic record

VenuePMC · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiogenesisPressure overloadAfterloadDecompensationPulmonary hypertensionVentricular remodelingInternal medicineCardiologyMedicineHeart failureBlood pressureCardiac hypertrophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Right ventricular (RV) function is the primary prognostic factor for both morbidity and mortality in pulmonary hypertension (PH). RV hypertrophy is initially an adaptive physiological response to increased overload; however, with persistent and/or progressive afterload increase, this response frequently transitions to more pathological maladaptive remodeling. The mechanisms and disease processes underlying this transition are mostly unknown. Angiogenesis has recently emerged as a major modifier of RV adaptation in the setting of pressure overload. A novel paradigm has emerged that suggests that angiogenesis and angiogenic signaling are required for RV adaptation to afterload increases and that impaired and/or insufficient angiogenesis is a major driver of RV decompensation. Here, we summarize our current understanding of the concepts of maladaptive and adaptive RV remodeling, discuss the current literature on angiogenesis in the adapted and failing RV, and identify potential therapeutic approaches targeting angiogenesis in RV failure.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePMCSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207