MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Do kappa opioid receptors regulate cardiovascular responses to severe haemorrhage in conscious newborn lambs? (859.3)

2014· article· en· W1546792556 on OpenAlexafffund
Francine G. Smith, Mohamed Samhan, Qi Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHemodynamicsDynorphinBaroreflexHeart rateBlood pressureMedicineAnesthesiaHaemodynamic responseAntagonistκ-opioid receptorInternal medicineCardiologyOpioidReceptorOpioid peptide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously, we showed that activation of kappa opioid receptors (KORs) influences systemic haemodynamics and the baroreflex control of heart rate (HR) in conscious lambs. The endogenous ligand for KORs, Dynorphin, is increased in response to severe blood loss however, any role for KORs in the haemodynamic responses to haemorrhage in the newborn is not known. In the present study, mean, systolic and diastolic arterial pressures (MAP, SAP, DAP) as well as HR were measured for 30 min before (Control) and 60 min after 30% haemorrhage in conscious lambs (aged ~one week, N=7) after pretreatment with vehicle (experiment one) or the selective KOR antagonist, GNTI (experiment two). After vehicle, MAP fell from 75±5 (Control) to 48±9 mmHg by 10 min after haemorrhage and remained decreased. This response resulted from a decrease in both SAP and DAP and was not altered by pretreatment with GNTI. HR decreased from 189±29 (Control) to 139±30 beats/min 10 min after haemorrhage; this response was attenuated by GNTI. Therefore, KORs do not appear to influence the blood pressure response to severe blood loss early in life but do abrogate the HR response to haemorrhage. Grant Funding Source : Supported by the CIHR.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→