Perfused Skeletal Muscle-An Experimental Preparation for Many Questions¡
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perfused mammalian skeletal muscle preparations either in vitro or in situ are one of the options to be considered when planning a physiological research program or project. Such preparations have been and continue to be used to investigate research questions as diverse as skeletal muscle function and metabolism, peripheral vascular function, and an approximation of exercise. When selecting a perfused muscle preparation, both anatomical and physiological organization must be evaluated in the context of the planned experiment. In any experiment, a number of physiologically significant variables can be manipulated, such as the level of flow and the arterial or inflow concentration of a gas or substance to control substrate supply and metabolite removal as well as the stimulation parameters to alter metabolic rate. The choice of blood or an artificial perfusate is of paramount importance because, when compared to blood-perfused preparations, those receiving artificial perfusates show depressed vascular autoregulation among other changes, indicating a decrease in physiological quality. Overall, perfused skeletal muscle preparations can be used to examine many and varied research questions with close to in-vivo quality and a high degree of accuracy and control if blood-perfused.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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.
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".