Effect of stimulation frequency on angiogenesis and gene expression in ischemic skeletal muscle of rabbit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the comparative effects of different frequencies of electrical stimulation (ES) on angiogenesis and gene expression, New Zealand white rabbits with femoral artery ligation in one hindlimb and electrode implantation on the sciatic nerve of the same hindlimb were randomly assigned to 4 groups: control group, 1 Hz group, 10 Hz group, and 40 Hz group. The ES procedure involved 5 min stimulation, followed by 5 min rest, repeated 8 times daily for 4 consecutive weeks. The resting blood flow (RBF) was measured via the microspheres technique. Collateralization was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Angiogenic factors were analyzed by real-time RT-PCR. Both RBF and capillary density were significantly increased in the 10 Hz and 40 Hz groups, but were not changed in the 1 Hz group. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mRNA was highest in the 40 Hz group. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha (HIF-1alpha) mRNA was significantly elevated only in the 40 Hz group. VEGF receptor fetal liver kinase 1 (Flk-1) mRNA was upregulated equally in the 10 Hz and 40 Hz groups, but fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF-2) mRNA did not change in any group. Our results suggest that the optimal frequency of ES for angiogenesis is within the 10-40 Hz range.
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".