Cellular models for human cardiomyopathy: What is the best option?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genetic cardiomyopathies are a group of disorders related by abnormal myocardial structure and function. Although individually rare, these diseases collectively represent a significant health burden since they usually develop early in life and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality amongst affected children. The heterogeneity and rarity of these disorders requires the use of an appropriate model system in order to characterize the mechanism of disease and develop useful therapeutics since standard drug trials are infeasible. A common approach to study human disease involves the use of animal models, especially rodents, but due to important biological and physiological differences, this model system may not recapitulate human disease. An alternative approach for studying the metabolic cardiomyopathies relies on the use of cellular models which have most frequently been immortalized cell lines or patient-derived fibroblasts. However, the recent introduction of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which have the ability to differentiate into any cell type in the body, is of great interest and has the potential to revolutionize the study of rare diseases. In this paper we review the advantages and disadvantages of each model system by comparing their utility for the study of mitochondrial cardiomyopathy with a particular focus on the use of iPSCs in cardiovascular biology for the modeling of rare genetic or metabolic diseases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".