MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607633047 · doi:10.1159/000158499

Comparison of Fenestrations in Internal Elastic Laminae of Canine Thoracic and Abdominal Aortas

2008· article· en· W1607633047 on OpenAlexaff
S. H. Song, Margot R. Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Vessels · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All non-elastin tissue was removed from canine aortas by placing them in 0.1 N NaOH at 75 degrees C for varying periods of time. The segments of aorta were weighed in a Mettler Chemical Balance at intervals. In 10 dogs the average weight of the thoracic aorta was 5.01 +/- 0.388 (SE) g while that of the abdominal aorta was 3.08 +/- 0.346 g. After digestion, the thoracic aorta weighed 3.34 +/- 0.0275 g and the abdominal aorta 0.85 +/- 0.085 g. Thus, the elastin makes up 67% of the thoracic aorta but only 28% of the abdominal aorta. These are equivalent to 0.334 g/kg body weight for the thoracic aorta and 0.224 g/kg body weight for the abdominal aorta. The values were always stable between 5 and 7 h and usually between 3 and 12 h. Aortic elastin was obtained from 5 dogs after 5-7 h of digestion and prepared for analysis by scanning electron microscopy. The dimensions of the fenestrations in the internal elastic laminae were quantified as described previously. The lower abdominal aorta had the largest holes (2.227 +/- 0.048 micron), and the upper thoracic aorta the smallest holes (0.954 +/- 0.032 micron). There was no significant difference in the size of the fenestrations along the thoracic aorta, but those in the lower abdominal aorta were larger than those in the upper abdominal aorta. The possible significance of the fenestrations in the genesis of aortic disease is discussed briefly.

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: 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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood VesselsSame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207