MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391257677 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2024.01.022

The Revolution of Cardiac Myosin Inhibitors in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

2024· article· en· W4391257677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebecca Haraf, Hany Habib, Ahmad Masri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyInternal medicineCardiologyCardiomyopathyMyosinHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common genetic cardiomyopathy worldwide and causes significant morbidity and mortality. For decades, medical treatment options have been limited and untargeted, with frequent need for invasive interventions not readily accessible to many HCM patients. More recently, our understanding of the genetic basis and pathophysiologic mechanism of HCM has grown significantly, leading to the discovery of a new class of medications, cardiac myosin inhibitors (CMIs), that shift myosin into the super-relaxed state to counteract the hypercontractility in HCM. Subsequent clinical trials have proven the mechanism and efficacy of CMIs in humans with obstructive HCM, and additional trials are under way in patients with nonobstructive HCM. With favourable results in the completed clinical trials and ongoing research on the horizon, CMIs represent a bright new era in the targeted management of HCM. This review is focused on the discovery of CMIs, provides a summary of the results of clinical trials to date, provides clinicians with a roadmap for implementing CMIs into practice, and identifies gaps in our current understanding as well as areas of ongoing investigation.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207