MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213320394 · doi:10.3390/cells10113125

Regenerating Damaged Myocardium: A Review of Stem-Cell Therapies for Heart Failure

2021· review· en· W3213320394 on OpenAlexaff
Dihan Fan, Hanrong Wu, Kaichao Pan, Huashan Peng, Rongxue Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced pluripotent stem cellTransdifferentiationHeart failureStem cellMyocardial infarctionMedicineRegenerative medicineProgenitor cellStem-cell therapyMyocyteNeuroscienceRegeneration (biology)CardiologyBioinformaticsCancer researchInternal medicineBiologyCell biologyEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the contributing factors to more than one-third of human mortality and the leading cause of death worldwide. The death of cardiac myocyte is a fundamental pathological process in cardiac pathologies caused by various heart diseases, including myocardial infarction. Thus, strategies for replacing fibrotic tissue in the infarcted region with functional myocardium have long been a goal of cardiovascular research. This review begins by briefly discussing a variety of somatic stem- and progenitor-cell populations that were frequently studied in early investigations of regenerative myocardial therapy and then focuses primarily on pluripotent stem cells (PSCs), especially induced-pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which have emerged as perhaps the most promising source of cardiomyocytes for both therapeutic applications and drug testing. We also describe attempts to generate cardiomyocytes directly from cardiac fibroblasts (i.e., transdifferentiation), which, if successful, may enable the pool of endogenous cardiac fibroblasts to be used as an in-situ source of cardiomyocytes for myocardial repair.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207