Cover Image
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The zebrafish heart regenerates after various severe injuries. Common processes of heart regeneration are cardiomyocyte proliferation, activation of epicardial tissue, and neovascularization. In order to further characterize heart regeneration processes, we introduced milder injuries and compared responses to those induced by ventricular apex resection, a widely used injury method. We used scratching of the ventricular surface and puncturing of the ventricle with a fine tungsten needle as injury‐inducing techniques. Results: Scratching the ventricular surface induced subtle cardiomyocyte proliferation and responses of the epicardium. Endothelial cell accumulation was limited to the surface of the heart. Ventricular puncture induced cardiomyocyte proliferation, endocardial and epicardial activation, and neo‐vascularization, similar to the resection method. However, the degree of the responses was milder, correlating with milder injury. Sham operation induced epicardial aldh1a2 expression but not tbx18 and WT1. Conclusions: Puncturing the ventricle induces responses equivalent to resection at milder degrees in a shorter time frame and can be used as a simple injury model. Scratching the ventricle did not induce heart regeneration and can be used for studying wound responses to epicardium. Developmental Dynamics 243:1477–1486, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.870 | 0.676 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".