Disparate Effects of Carvedilol Versus Metoprolol Treatment of Stroke-Prone Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats on Endothelial Function of Resistance Arteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In human hypertension, blockade of beta-adrenoceptors does not improve resistance artery structure or endothelial dysfunction. We tested in hypertensive rats the hypothesis that carvedilol, a beta-blocker with antioxidant properties, would improve endothelial dysfunction, whereas the beta1-selective blocker, metoprolol, would not. Twenty-week-old SHRSP were treated orally for 10 weeks with carvedilol (50 mg/kg/day) or metoprolol (100 mg/kg/day), with or without hydralazine (25 mg/kg/day), the latter because neither beta-blocker was a very effective blood pressure-lowering agent in this model. Mesenteric arteries (lumen, <300 microm) were studied on a pressurized myograph. After 10 weeks, untreated SHRSP had a systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) of 239+/-3 that was unaffected by carvedilol or metoprolol treatment but decreased (p < 0.05) by hydralazine (187+/-4), carvedilol + hydralazine (221+/-3), and metoprolol + hydralazine (197+/-3). Carvedilol alone improved endothelium-dependent relaxation of resistance arteries, as elicited by the lowest concentration of acetylcholine studied (10(-7) M), whereas metoprolol had no effect. Hydralazine improved endothelial function as elicited by acetylcholine at a dose of 10(-6) M, also found under cotreatment with carvedilol but attenuated by cotreatment with metoprolol. Carvedilol or metoprolol alone had no significant effect on endothelium-independent relaxation produced by a nitric oxide donor (sodium nitroprusside). However, vessels from rats treated with carvedilol + hydralazine exhibited significantly greater relaxation than those from rats treated with metoprolol + hydralazine. These data suggest that carvedilol may have favorable effects on hypertension-related endothelial dysfunction not observed with metoprolol. Neither drug corrected small artery structure in SHRSP.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".