Computational simulation of vasopressin secretion using a rat model of the water and electrolyte homeostasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In mammals, vasopressin (AVP) is released from magnocellular neurons of the hypothalamus when osmotic pressure exceeds a fixed set-point. AVP participates to the hydromineral homeostasis (HH) by controlling water excretion at the level of the kidneys. Our current understanding of the HH and AVP secretion is the result of a vast amount of data collected over the five past decades. This experimental data was collected using a number of systems under different conditions, giving a fragmented view of the components involved in HH. RESULTS: Here, we present a high-level model of the rat HH based on selected published results to predict short-term (hours) to long-term (days) variation of six major homeostatic parameters: (1) the extracellular sodium concentration, (2) the AVP concentration, (3) the intracellular volume, (4) the extracellular volume, (5) the urine volume and (6) the water intake. The simulation generates quantitative predictions like the daily mean of the extracellular sodium concentration (142.2 mmol/L), the AVP concentration, (1.7 pg/ml), the intracellular volume (45.3 ml/100 g body weight--bw), the extracellular volume (22.6 ml/100 g bw), the urine volume (11.8 ml/100 g bw) and the cumulative water intake (18 ml/100 g bw). The simulation also computes the dynamics of all these parameters with a high temporal resolution of one minute. This high resolution predicts the circadian fluctuation of the AVP secretion (5 ± 2 pg/ml) and defines the limits of a restoration and a maintenance phase in the HH (2.1 pg/ml). Moreover, the simulation can predict the action of pharmacological compounds that disrupt the HH. As an example, we tested the action of a diuretic (furosemide) combined with a sodium deficient diet to generate quantitative prediction on the extracellular sodium concentration (134 mmol/L) and the need-induced water intake (20.3 ml/100 g bw). These simulated data are compatible with experimental data (136 ± 3 mmol/L and 17.5 ± 3.5 ml/100 g bw, respectively). CONCLUSION: The quantitative agreement of the predictions with published experimental data indicates that our simplified model of the HH integrates most of the essential systems to predict realistic physiological values and dynamics under a set of normal and perturbed hydromineral conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".