Zebrafish as a tractable model of human cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian models including non-human primates, pigs and rodents have been used extensively to study the mechanisms of cardiovascular disease. However, there is an increasing desire for alternative model systems that provide excellent scientific value while replacing or reducing the use of mammals. Here, we review the use of zebrafish, Danio rerio, to study cardiovascular development and disease. The anatomy and physiology of zebrafish and mammalian cardiovascular systems are compared, and we describe the use of zebrafish models in studying the mechanisms of cardiac (e.g. congenital heart defects, cardiomyopathy, conduction disorders and regeneration) and vascular (endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, lipid metabolism, vascular ageing, neurovascular physiology and stroke) pathologies. We also review the use of zebrafish for studying pharmacological responses to cardiovascular drugs and describe several features of zebrafish that make them a compelling model for in vivo screening of compounds for the treatment cardiovascular disease. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on Preclinical Models for Cardiovascular disease research (BJP 75th Anniversary). To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v179.5/issuetoc.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".