MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modulation of nitric oxide affects myocardial perfusion-contraction matching in anaesthetized dogs with recurrent no-flow ischaemia

2011· article· en· W1480356841 on OpenAlexafffund
John G. Kingma, Denys Simard, Jacques R. Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersHeart And Stroke Foundation Of QuebecNational Institutes of HealthUniversité Laval
KeywordsPerfusionMedicineCardiologyContraction (grammar)Blood flowInternal medicineIschemiaNitric oxideHemodynamicsCoronary circulationAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myocardial perfusion and contraction are closely coupled; however, the effect of recurrent no-flow ischaemia on perfusion-contraction matching remains to be established. In the present studies, we examined the influence of modulating nitric oxide availability on perfusion-contraction matching after recurrent no-flow ischaemia in acute open-chest, anaesthetized dogs. The following three groups were studied: (1) saline; (2) L-NAME (10 mg kg(-1) I.V.); and (3) enalaprilat (1.5 mg kg(-1) I.V.). Regional myocardial blood flow was measured with microspheres and contractile function with piezoelectric crystals to determine systolic wall thickening. Dogs underwent four cycles of 5 min acute ischaemia and 5 min coronary reperfusion; area at risk was similar for all groups. In all dogs, ischaemic zone contractile function was depressed after recurrent no-flow ischaemia despite increased myocardial blood flow during reperfusion; contractile function was further depressed during L-NAME and was partly restored with enalaprilat. Within the ischaemic region, blood flow in subendocardial and subepicardial layers increased significantly compared with baseline during each reperfusion period independently of treatment. Our findings suggest that reduced NO availability can significantly impair myocardial perfusion-contraction matching, which is partly restored by administration of an NO donor.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207