Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Myocardial infarct size measurement in the mouse chronic infarction model: comparison of area- and length-based approaches

Open access
Takagawa, Junya, Zhang, Yan, Wong, Maelene L., Sievers, Richard E., Kapasi, Neel K., Wang, Yan, Yeghiazarians, Yerem, Lee, Randall J., Grossman, William, Springer, Matthew L.·2007·Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract

Efficacy of potential treatments for myocardial infarction (MI) is commonly assessed by histological measurement of infarct size in rodent models. In experiments involving an acute MI setting, measurement of the infarcted area in tissue sections of the left ventricle is a standard approach to determine infarct size. This approach has also been used in the chronic infarct setting to measure infarct area several weeks post-MI. We tested the hypothesis that, because wall thinning is known to occur in the chronic setting, the area measurement approach would be less appropriate. We compared infarct measurements in tissue sections based on 1) infarct area, 2) epicardial and endocardial infarct arc lengths, and 3) midline infarct arc length. Infarct sizes from all three measurement approaches correlated significantly with left ventricular ejection fraction and wall motion abnormality. However, the infarct size values derived from the area measurement approach were significantly smaller than those from the other two measurement approaches, and the range of values obtained was compressed 0.4-fold. The midline method allowed detection of the expected size differences between infarcts of variable severity resulting from proximal vs. distal ligation of the coronary artery. Segmental infarct size was correlated with segmental wall motion abnormality. We conclude that both area- and length-based measurements can be used to determine relative infarct size over a wide range of severity, although the area-based measurements are substantially more compressed due to wall thinning, and that the estimation of infarct midlines is a simple, reliable approach to infarct size assessment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/japplphysiol.00033.2007

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
Takagawa, J., Zhang, Y., Wong, M. L., Sievers, R. E., Kapasi, N. K., Wang, Y., Yeghiazarians, Y., Lee, R. J., Grossman, W., & Springer, M. L.
Venue
Journal of Applied Physiology
Published
2007-06
Volume
102
Issue
6
Pages
2104-2111
ISSN
  • 0161-7567 (ISSN-L)
  • 8750-7587
  • 1522-1601
OpenAlex
W2123503904
Cited by
307
References
0
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Myocardial infarct size measurement in the mouse chronic infarction model: comparison of area- and length-based approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/japplphysiol.00033.2007
The paper
Takagawa, J., Zhang, Y., Wong, M. L., Sievers, R. E., Kapasi, N. K., Wang, Y., Yeghiazarians, Y., Lee, R. J., Grossman, W., & Springer, M. L. (2007). Myocardial infarct size measurement in the mouse chronic infarction model: comparison of area- and length-based approaches. Journal of Applied Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00033.2007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.