MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404050112 · doi:10.1042/cs20241084

Endothelial cell-cardiomyocyte cross-talk: understanding bidirectional paracrine signaling in cardiovascular homeostasis and disease

2024· review· en· W4404050112 on OpenAlexafffund
D. Adao, Crizza Ching, Jason E. Fish, Craig A. Simmons, Filio Billia

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Science · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of New BrunswickToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health
KeywordsParacrine signallingAngiogenesisHomeostasisContractilityRegeneration (biology)Autocrine signallingMedicineCardiotoxicityIschemiaDiseaseEndothelial stem cellBiologyCell biologyInternal medicineReceptorChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To maintain homeostasis in the heart, endothelial cells and cardiomyocytes engage in dynamic cross-talk through paracrine signals that regulate both cardiac development and function. Here, we review the paracrine signals that endothelial cells release to regulate cardiomyocyte growth, hypertrophy and contractility, and the factors that cardiomyocytes release to influence angiogenesis and vascular tone. Dysregulated communication between these cell types can drive pathophysiology of disease, as seen in ischemia-reperfusion injury, diabetes, maladaptive hypertrophy, and chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. Investingating the role of cross-talk is critical in developing an understanding of tissue homeostasis, regeneration, and disease pathogenesis, with the potential to identify novel targets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ScienceSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207