Contractile Responses of Caudal Arteries from Diabetic Rats to Adrenergic Nerve Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of 12-14 weeks streptozotocin-induced diabetes on contractile responses of the highly innervated caudal artery to adrenergic nerve stimulation was studied. The maximum contractile response and sensitivity (as reflected by the pD2 value) to noradrenaline (NA) was significantly greater in diabetic than in control caudal arteries. The maximum contractile response, but not sensitivity, to tyramine was significantly enhanced in diabetic compared with control caudal arteries when expressed as stress (mN/mm2), but not when expressed as a percentage of the maximum NA response obtained between the responses of control and diabetic caudal arteries to electrical field stimulation of adrenergic nerves, when expressed either as stress or as a percentage of the corresponding NA response. Pretreatment with phentolamine markedly inhibited the contractile responses to field stimulation of both diabetic and control caudal arteries, while 6-hydroxydopamine essentially abolished responses to electrical field stimulation and tyramine in both tissues. Finally, pretreatment with hydrocortisone, timolol, and desipramine increased sensitivity to NA in control and diabetic caudal arteries by a similar magnitude. Thus, the enhanced contractile responses of caudal arteries from diabetic rats to NA do not appear to be associated with the development of autonomic neuropathy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".