A framework for developing sex-specific engineered heart models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The convergence of tissue engineering and patient-specific stem cell biology has enabled the engineering of in vitro tissue models that allow the study of patient-tailored treatment modalities. However, sex-related disparities in health and disease, from systemic hormonal influences to cellular-level differences, are often overlooked in stem cell biology, tissue engineering and preclinical screening. The cardiovascular system, in particular, shows considerable sex-related differences, which need to be considered in cardiac tissue engineering. In this Review, we analyse sex-related properties of the heart muscle in the context of health and disease, and discuss a framework for including sex-based differences in human cardiac tissue engineering. We highlight how sex-based features can be implemented at the cellular and tissue levels, and how sex-specific cardiac models could advance the study of cardiovascular diseases. Finally, we define design criteria for sex-specific cardiac tissue engineering and provide an outlook to future research possibilities beyond the cardiovascular system. Sex-related differences in health and disease are often overlooked in tissue engineering. This Review discusses sex-based differences in the (patho)physiology of the cardiovascular system, providing a design framework for sex-specific cardiac tissue models and an outlook to developing sex-specific in vitro models in general.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it