MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984927527 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31261-9_9

Therapeutic Use of Bioengineered Materials for Myocardial Infarction

2019· book-chapter· en· W2984927527 on OpenAlexaff
Veronika Sedláková, Marc Ruel, Erik J. Suuronen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMedicineHeart failureExtracellular matrixVentricular remodelingCardiologyIntensive care medicineCell biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of worldwide mortality. Despite the success of current therapies for acute myocardial infarction (MI), many patients still suffer irreversible damage, and the prevalence of heart failure is growing. After MI, the extracellular matrix (ECM) of the damaged myocardium is modified to produce scar tissue. This remodeling reduces the efficacy of therapies and also hinders endogenous repair mechanisms. Therefore, a strategy to prevent adverse remodeling and provide a suitable ECM environment that supports cells, tissue repair and functional restoration may lead to a superior therapeutic outcome in MI patients. Bioengineered materials are an attractive approach for achieving this. Herein, we review current research on materials that can act as a biomimetic matrix for supporting cellular repair in the post-MI heart. We also examine how nanomaterials are being used to treat the damaged heart. Finally, we provide an overview of the breakthroughs and limitations of biomaterial therapies for cardiac repair.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207