MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003387875 · doi:10.1159/000124670

Radioautographic Localization of <sup>125</sup> I-Atrial Natriuretic Factor Binding Sites in the Brain

2008· article· en· W2003387875 on OpenAlexaff
C Bianchi, Jolanta Gutkowska, M. Ballak, G Thibault, R. García, J Genest, Marc Cantin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroendocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoroid plexusEndocrinologyInternal medicineCircumventricular organsSubcommissural organAtrial natriuretic peptideBlood–brain barrierIn vivoChemistryBiologyMedicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rats were injected through the carotid artery (cephalad direction) with 18.9 mu Ci of either 125I-Arg 101-Tyr 126 atrial natriuretic factor alone or together with an excess of unlabeled hormone. At 2 min after injection, all rats were fixed in vivo by perfusion and serial sections of the whole brain were processed for light microscope radioautography. The radioautographic reaction produced by 125I-atrial natriuretic factor alone was localized in all circumventricular organs (except the subcommissural organ), the smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells of arteries, arterioles, veins, venules, the endothelial cells of intraparenchymal capillaries and the epithelial cells of the choroid plexus. In rats which received 125I-atrial natriuretic factor plus an excess of unlabeled hormone, the radioautographic reaction was reduced by 70-90%. Binding sites are thus localized in regions of the brain, some of them involved in the central monitoring of blood pressure and osmolarity. In addition, the presence of binding sites in the cerebral vasculature and in the epithelium of the choroid plexus suggests that circulating ANF may play a role in the control of cerebral blood flow and in the production of vertebrospinal fluid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroendocrinologySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207