MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203729610 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00459.2021

Guidelines for in vivo mouse models of myocardial infarction

2021· review· en· W3203729610 on OpenAlexaff
Merry L. Lindsey, Keith R. Brunt, Jonathan A. Kirk, Petra Kleinbongard, John W. Calvert, Lisandra E. de Castro Brás, Kristine Y. DeLeon‐Pennell, Dominic P. Del Re, Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, Stefan Frantz, Richard J. Gumina, Ganesh V. Halade, Steven P. Jones, Rebecca H. Ritchie, Francis G. Spinale, Edward B. Thorp, Crystal M. Ripplinger, Zamaneh Kassiri

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMedicineContext (archaeology)Heart failureVentricleCardiologyInternal medicineInfarctionVentricular remodelingIn vivoIntensive care medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite significant improvements in reperfusion strategies, acute coronary syndromes all too often culminate in a myocardial infarction (MI). The consequent MI can, in turn, lead to remodeling of the left ventricle (LV), the development of LV dysfunction, and ultimately progression to heart failure (HF). Accordingly, an improved understanding of the underlying mechanisms of MI remodeling and progression to HF is necessary. One common approach to examine MI pathology is with murine models that recapitulate components of the clinical context of acute coronary syndrome and subsequent MI. We evaluated the different approaches used to produce MI in mouse models and identified opportunities to consolidate methods, recognizing that reperfused and nonreperfused MI yield different responses. The overall goal in compiling this consensus statement is to unify best practices regarding mouse MI models to improve interpretation and allow comparative examination across studies and laboratories. These guidelines will help to establish rigor and reproducibility and provide increased potential for clinical translation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.013

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations140
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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