MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170321787 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00234.2021

Reperfused vs. nonreperfused myocardial infarction: when to use which model

2021· editorial· en· W3170321787 on OpenAlexafffund
Merry L. Lindsey, Lisandra E. de Castro Brás, Kristine Y. DeLeon‐Pennell, Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, Ganesh V. Halade, Caitlin C. O’Meara, Francis G. Spinale, Zamaneh Kassiri, Jonathan A. Kirk, Petra Kleinbongard, Crystal M. Ripplinger, Keith R. Brunt

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institutes of HealthOffice of Research and DevelopmentAmerican Heart AssociationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsOffice of Extramural Research, National Institutes of HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAnimal modelIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a lack of understanding in the cardiac remodeling field regarding the use of nonreperfused myocardial infarction (MI) and reperfused MI in animal models of MI. This Perspectives summarizes the consensus of the authors regarding how to select the optimum model for your experiments and is a part of ongoing efforts to establish rigor and reproducibility in cardiac physiology research.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0090.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207