MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603691198 · doi:10.1139/y06-087

Differential effects of losartan and candesartan on vasoconstrictor responses in the ratThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled The Cellular and Molecular Basis of Cardiovascular Dysfunction, Dhalla 70th Birthday Tribute.

2007· article· en· W1603691198 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bobby D. Nossaman, Syed R. Baber, Mohammed M. Nazim, John D. Detrolio, Philip J. Kadowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsLosartanCandesartanAngiotensin IIInternal medicineThromboxane A2EndocrinologyThromboxaneAngiotensin II receptor type 1Angiotensin receptorNorepinephrineMedicineVasoconstrictionPharmacologyChemistryBlood pressureReceptorPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Losartan has been reported to have inhibitory effects on thromboxane (TP) receptor-mediated responses. In the present study, the effects of 2 nonpeptide angiotensin II (AT1) receptor antagonists, losartan and candesartan, on responses to angiotensin II, the thromboxane A2 mimic, U46619, and norepinephrine were investigated and compared in the pulmonary and systemic vascular beds of the intact-chest rat. In this study, intravenous injections of angiotensin II, U46619, and norepinephrine produced dose-related increases in pulmonary and systemic arterial pressure. Losartan and candesartan, in the doses studied, decreased or abolished responses to angiotensin II. Losartan, but not candesartan, and only in a higher dose, produced small, but statistically significant, reductions in pressor responses to U46619 and to norepinephrine in the pulmonary and systemic vascular beds. Furthermore, losartan significantly reduced arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation, whereas candesartan had no effect. Pressor responses to angiotensin II were not changed by thromboxane and alpha-adrenergic receptor antagonists, or by cyclooxygenase and NO synthase inhibitors. These results show that losartan and candesartan are potent selective AT1 receptor antagonists in the pulmonary and systemic vascular beds and that losartan can attenuate thromboxane and alpha-adrenergic responses when administered at a high dose, whereas candesartan in the highest dose studied had no effect on responses to U46619 or to norepinephrine. The present data show that the effects of losartan and candesartan on vasoconstrictor responses are different and that pulmonary and systemic pressor responses to angiotensin II are not modulated or mediated by the release of cyclooxygenase products, activation of TP receptors, or the release of NO in the anesthetized rat.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207