MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mannitol But Not Dantrolene Prevents Myocardial Dysfunction Following Intra‐cranial Hypertension in Rats

2005· article· en· W1503406829 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean R. R. Hall, L. Wang, Brian Milne, Murray Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsDantroleneMedicineMannitolAnesthesiaPharmacologyInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac complications stemming from intra-cranial hypertension may result from impaired intra-cellular Ca(2+) homeostasis. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of dantrolene, a blocker of sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca(2+) release, on myocardial dysfunction associated with intra-cranial hypertension in rats. Dantrolene (10 mg) with and without 15% mannitol was administered to halothane-anesthetized rats prior to induction of intra-cranial hypertension by subdural balloon inflation. Its effects were compared to 3% and 15% mannitol and 5% Pentaspan. Dantrolene with mannitol or 15% mannitol alone prevented the transient intra-cranial hypertension-induced hyperdynamic response and ensuing circulatory collapse that was found in animals pre-treated with 3% mannitol solution or pentaspan. Moreover, hemodynamic function was preserved irrespective of TnI cleavage. However, only animals treated with high dose 15% mannitol exhibited lower lipid peroxidation content in the heart. In contrast, pre-treatment with dantrolene alone did not prevent the cardiac complications associated with intra-cranial hypertension. In conclusion, 15% mannitol attenuated the cardiopulmonary complications associated with intra-cranial hypertension. Dantrolene without mannitol was without effect. Since mannitol exhibits free radical scavenging properties, protection could be the result of a decrease in oxidative stress after intra-cranial hypertension.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207