Bibliographic record
Abstract
The casual reader of recent literature might wonder whether some authors conceive of an atherosclerosis so independent of the substrate of the vessel wall that it might occur in the absence of the blood vessels themselves (Duff and McMillan, 1951). It has been only recently that multiple long-range clinical and experimental studies, while emphasizing variability in distribution, anatomical severity, and rate of progression of individual arterial lesions (DeBakey, 1977; McGill, 1974; Robertson, 1977; Strong, Eggen and Oalmann, 1972), have stressed the need for a better understanding of the role of focal changes of the vascular wall during atherogenesis (Glagov, 1971). Several years ago, selective mechanical induction of arterial injury in normo and hypercholesterolemic rabbits (Gutstein, Robertson and LaTaillade, 1963) suggested to us that vascular repair could induce local responses that significantly alter the character and the extent of experimental atherosclerosis. These studies were followed by the evaluation of the acute effects of vasoactive agents on arterial function when given at concentrations well below those required to induce sustained systemic hypertension (Khairallah, Robertson and Davila, 1972; Robertson and Khairallah, 1972; Robertson and Khairallah, 1973). In brief, the results obtained strongly suggested that entrapment of circulating macromolecules by the vascular wall could be significantly enhanced by these drugs and that blood platelets played a synergistic role with potentially atherogenic risk factors (Robertson, 1977). For some of the current studies, an inbred strain of spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) genetically identified by Okamoto et al. (1972) from
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.041 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".