Heat Shock Treatment Prior to Myocardial Infarction Results in Reduced Ventricular Remodeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heat shock (HS) treatment has been suggested to confer myocardial protection following ischemia. However, the effects of HS on left ventricular (LV) remodeling weeks after infarction have yet to be described. METHODS: Myocardial infarction (MI) was created by coronary ligation in Lewis rats. Two experimental groups of animals were created: HS+MI group (n = 13) and MI group (n = 13). HS treatment consisted of an elevation in core temperature to 42 degrees C for 15 min, 24 hr prior to MI. LV remodeling was assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (day 0, 1, 7, and 28) and by morphometric histology (day 28). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in infarct size (TTC stain 24 hr) between HS+MI and MI groups. Using transthoracic echo there was a significant preservation of LV ejection fraction and fractional shortening in the HS+MI group as compared to MI group (7 and 28 days). Similar trends were seen by histology at 28 days but failed to reach significance. HSP27 expression by myocardial cells was shown to remain up-regulated (at 28 days) in both groups at the edges of the infarct area as compared to control myocardium. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that HS treatment prior to MI can result in a significant decrease in LV remodeling independent of a reduction in infarct size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".