MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001893346 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1811

A Network Analysis to Identify Pathophysiological Pathways Distinguishing Ischaemic from Non-Ischaemic Heart Failure

2020· article· en· W3001893346 on OpenAlexaff
Iziah E Sama, Rebecca J. Woolley, Jan F. Nauta, Simon P.R. Romaine, Jasper Tromp, Jozine M. ter Maaten, Peter van der Meer, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Nilesh J. Samani, Leong L. Ng, Marco Metra, Kenneth Dickstein, Stefan D. Anker, Faı̈ez Zannad, Chim C. Lang, John G.F. Cleland, Dirk J. van Veldhuisen, Hans L. Hillege, Adriaan A. Voors

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilVifor PharmaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAstraZenecaMyoKardiaMedical Research CouncilCytokineticsBoston Scientific CorporationServierEuropean CommissionAmgen
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicinePathophysiologyMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInflammationBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is frequently caused by an ischaemic event (e.g. myocardial infarction) but might also be caused by a primary disease of the myocardium (cardiomyopathy). In order to identify targeted therapies specific for either ischaemic or non-ischaemic HF, it is important to better understand differences in underlying molecular mechanisms. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a biological physical protein-protein interaction network analysis to identify pathophysiological pathways distinguishing ischaemic from non-ischaemic HF. First, differentially expressed plasma protein biomarkers were identified in 1160 patients enrolled in the BIOSTAT-CHF study, 715 of whom had ischaemic HF and 445 had non-ischaemic HF. Second, we constructed an enriched physical protein-protein interaction network, followed by a pathway over-representation analysis. Finally, we identified key network proteins. Data were validated in an independent HF cohort comprised of 765 ischaemic and 100 non-ischaemic HF patients. We found 21/92 proteins to be up-regulated and 2/92 down-regulated in ischaemic relative to non-ischaemic HF patients. An enriched network of 18 proteins that were specific for ischaemic heart disease yielded six pathways, which are related to inflammation, endothelial dysfunction superoxide production, coagulation, and atherosclerosis. We identified five key network proteins: acid phosphatase 5, epidermal growth factor receptor, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1, plasminogen activator urokinase receptor, and secreted phosphoprotein 1. Similar results were observed in the independent validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Pathophysiological pathways distinguishing patients with ischaemic HF from those with non-ischaemic HF were related to inflammation, endothelial dysfunction superoxide production, coagulation, and atherosclerosis. The five key pathway proteins identified are potential treatment targets specifically for patients with ischaemic HF.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207