MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024074304 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000020856

Quercetin for myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury

2020· article· en· W3024074304 on OpenAlexaff
Liying Lu, Xiaocong Ma, Jinghui Zheng, Lijuan Li, Wen-Na Yang, Yixuan Kong, Jie Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineQuercetinAnimal studiesReperfusion injuryMyocardial ischemiaPublication biasMeta-analysisMyocardial infarctionPharmacologyInternal medicineIschemiaAntioxidantBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: At present, there is no effective therapy for preventing myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury (MIRI), and it is inevitable. The methods how to effectively decrease MIRI have attracted the attention of medical researches in recent years. Quercetin is a part of natural flavonoids in plant polyphenols. Many studies have found that quercetin has a positive effect on MIRI. METHODS: In order to clarify the effectiveness and potential mechanisms of quercetin for MIRI animals, we searched for animal studies of quercetin for MIRI in Wanfang data Information, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP information database, China Biology Medicine disc, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Participant intervention comparator outcomes of this study are as flowing: P, rats in MIRI; I, received quercetin treatment merely; C, received only vehicle or no treatment; O, Main outcomes are myocardial infarction size and markers of myocardial injury. Additional outcomes are serum indices or protein levels tied to the mechanisms of quercetin in myocardial l/R injury. Review Manager 5.2 software and Stata14.0 will be used for data analysis. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool will be used for risk of bias analysis of animal studies. DISCUSSION: This preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the effects and mechanisms of quercetin for MIRI animals, and provide more evidence-based guidance for transforming basic research into clinical treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INPLASY202050067, registered on 16/5/2020.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207