MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096423969

Angiogenesis: a Future Treatment Approach for Coronary Heart Disease

2015· article· en· W7096423969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArteryAngiogenesisCoronary artery diseaseBypass graftingAngioplastyDiseaseHeart diseaseBlood vessel
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary artery disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada and the western world. Despite increased awareness, better management of risk factors, and improved non-surgical and surgical treatment modalities, coronary artery disease can sometimes involve the vessels of some patients so severely that medications, angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting may be unsuccessful at alleviating heart symptoms and preventing complications. However, patients may in the future benefit from a biologically-based therapy called therapeutic angiogenesis, which recreates the highly potent physiologic processes that occur during growth and development in every animal and human being, with the goal of forming new blood vessels in the adult heart. What is angiogenesis? Angiogenesis is the formation of new blood vessels from preexisting ones. This process occurs somewhat naturally in the heart of patients who progressively develop coronary disease over a number of months to years, yet to a degree that is usually insufficient to completely alleviate cardiac symptoms and prevent subsequent complications. The sequence of events leading to angiogenesis is depicted in Figure 1. Angiogenesis is a very complex process, and it is believed that the actions of growth factors and of a locally produced gas called nitric oxide interplay to detach, multiply, rearrange, and recruit cells in order to create

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207