MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996466510 · doi:10.1159/000137572

Mini Review: Smooth Muscle Pharmacology of Substance P

2008· review· de· W1996466510 on OpenAlexaff
Réjean Couture, D. Regoli

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology · 2008
Typereview
Languagede
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEledoisinAtropineSubstance PPropranololIleumGuinea pigAcetylcholineInternal medicinePharmacologyEndocrinologyReceptorBiologyVasodilationStimulationChemistryMedicineNeuropeptide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substance P (SP), some of its C-terminal fragments and some of its homologues (physalaemin and eledoisin) are hypotensive in rats anaesthetised with urethane, vasodilators in isolated rabbit hearts, inhibitors of noradrenaline-induced contractions of the dog carotid artery and stimulants of contractions of the rabbit mesenteric vein, the guinea pig ileum and the rat colon. The effects of these peptides appear to be due to a direct action, mediated by specific receptors, in 4 of the 6 preparations, while the stimulation of the guinea pig ileum may depend in part on the release of intramural acetylcholine, because it is partially antagonised by atropine, and catecholamines appear to interfere with the contractile response of the rat colon to SP, since this response is potentiated by propranolol. SP, its C-terminal fragments, physalaemin and eledoisin appear to activate the same receptors systems in 4 of the 5 preparations in which desensitisation experiments could be performed (namely the rat blood pressure, the isolated rabbit heart, the rabbit mesenteric vein and the guinea pig ileum). In the dog carotid artery, there was no cross-desensitisation between SP and eledoisin but only between SP, its C-terminal fragments and physalaemin. The rat colon could not be desensitised.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations119
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacologySame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207