MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048812960 · doi:10.3390/cells9081894

Considering Cause and Effect of Immune Cell Aging on Cardiac Repair after Myocardial Infarction

2020· review· en· W3048812960 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie W. Tobin, Faisal J. Alibhai, Richard D. Weisel, Ren‐Ke Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Fibrosis and Remodeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmune systemMedicineInflammationMyocardial infarctionImmunologyStem cellPopulationInternal medicineBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of the immune system for cardiac repair following myocardial infarction is undeniable; however, the complex nature of immune cell behavior has limited the ability to develop effective therapeutics. This limitation highlights the need for a better understanding of the function of each immune cell population during the inflammatory and resolution phases of cardiac repair. The development of reliable therapies is further complicated by aging, which is associated with a decline in cell and organ function and the onset of cardiovascular and immunological diseases. Aging of the immune system has important consequences on heart function as both chronic cardiac inflammation and an impaired immune response to cardiac injury are observed in older individuals. Several studies have suggested that rejuvenating the aged immune system may be a valid therapeutic candidate to prevent or treat heart disease. Here, we review the basic patterns of immune cell behavior after myocardial infarction and discuss the autonomous and nonautonomous manners of hematopoietic stem cell and immune cell aging. Lastly, we identify prospective therapies that may rejuvenate the aged immune system to improve heart function such as anti-inflammatory and senolytic therapies, bone marrow transplant, niche remodeling and regulation of immune cell differentiation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicCardiac Fibrosis and RemodelingFrench-language works237,207