ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2018
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Cell Transcriptomics of Human Acute Myocardial Infarction Reveals Oxidative Stress-Associated Cardiomyocyte Subpopulations and Candidate Predictive Signatures.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Collagen VIII in vascular diseases.Matrix biology : journal of the International Society for Matrix Biology · 2024Review
- A new gene tree algorithm employing DNA sequences of bovine genome using discrete Fourier transformation.PloS one · 2023Article
- Genomic, Proteomic, and Metabolic Comparisons of Small Animal Models of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Tale of Mice, Rats, and Cats.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Review
- Targeting the Metabolic-Inflammatory Circuit in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.Current heart failure reports · 2022Review
- tRNA-Derived Small RNAs and Their Potential Roles in Cardiac Hypertrophy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard therapies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have been unsuccessful, demonstrating that the contribution of the underlying diastolic dysfunction pathophysiology differs from that of systolic dysfunction in heart failure and currently is far from being understood. Complicating the investigation of HFpEF is the contribution of several comorbidities. Here, we selected three established rat models of diastolic dysfunction defined by three major risk factors associated with HFpEF and researched their commonalities and differences. The top differentially expressed genes in the left ventricle of Dahl salt sensitive (Dahl/SS), spontaneous hypertensive heart failure (SHHF), and diabetes 1 induced HFpEF models were derived from published data in Gene Expression Omnibus and used for a comprehensive interpretation of the underlying pathophysiological context of each model. The diversity of the underlying transcriptomic of the heart of each model is clearly observed by the different panel of top regulated genes: the diabetic model has 20 genes in common with the Dahl/SS and 15 with the SHHF models. Advanced analytics performed in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.