MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969029060 · doi:10.1161/jaha.112.000075

Daily Ischemic Preconditioning Provides Sustained Protection From Ischemia–Reperfusion Induced Endothelial Dysfunction: A Human Study

2013· article· en· W1969029060 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Clare Luca, Andrew Liuni, Kelsey McLaughlin, Tommaso Gori, John D. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCelecoxibIschemic preconditioningPlaceboIschemiaAnesthesiaCrossover studyForearmInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is well established that acute ischemic preconditioning (IPC) protects against ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury; however, the effectiveness of repeated IPC exposure has not been extensively investigated. We aimed to determine whether daily IPC episodes provide continued protection from IR injury in a human forearm model, and the role of cyclooxygenase-2 in these responses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty healthy volunteers were randomized to participate in 2 of 3 protocols (IR alone, 1-day IPC, 7-day IPC) in an operator-blinded, crossover design. Subjects in the IR alone protocol underwent flow-mediated dilation (FMD) measurements pre- and post-IR (15' upper-arm ischemia and 15' reperfusion). The 1-day IPC protocol involved FMD measurements before and after 1 episode of IPC (3 cycles of 5' upper-arm ischemia and 5' reperfusion) and IR. Day 7 of the 7-day IPC protocol was identical to the 1-day IPC protocol but was preceded by single daily episodes of IPC for 6 days prior. During each protocol, subjects received a 7-day treatment of either the cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib or placebo. Pre-IR FMD was similar between groups. IR alone reduced FMD post-IR (placebo, ΔFMD: -4.4±0.7%; celecoxib, ΔFMD: -5.0±0.5%). One-day IPC completely prevented this effect (placebo, ΔFMD: -1.1±0.6%; celecoxib, ΔFMD: 0.0±0.7%; P<0.0001). Similarly, 7-day IPC demonstrated persistent endothelial protection post-IR (placebo, ΔFMD: -0.9±0.9%; celecoxib, ΔFMD: 0.0±0.8%; P<0.0001, P<0.0001 for ANOVA effect of IPC protocol). Celecoxib did not alter responses to IR in any protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Daily episodes of IPC provide sustained protection from IR-induced endothelial dysfunction in humans through a mechanism that appears cyclooxygenase-2-independent.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207