Comparative evaluation of atenolol and metoprolol on cardiovascular complications associated with streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, various clinical studies have indicated that lipophilic beta-blockers reduce the coronary mortality in diabetic patients; however, systematic studies have not been reported. The objective of the present investigation was to compare the effects of chronic treatment with metoprolol and atenolol on cardiovascular complications in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic rats. Injection of STZ produced hyperglycemia, hypoinsulinemia, hyperlipidemia, increased blood pressure, cardiac hypertrophy, reduction in heart rate, and structural alterations in cardiac tissues. Metoprolol and atenolol effectively prevented the development of hypertension in diabetic rats. Metoprolol treatment produced a slight but significant reduction in serum glucose levels with elevation in serum insulin levels, while atenolol produced a slight increase in glucose levels but no effect on insulin levels. Moreover, neither metoprolol nor atenolol treatment reduced the elevated cholesterol levels in diabetic rats. Metoprolol treatment significantly prevented STZ-induced increase in triglyceride levels, but atenolol failed to produce this effect. Metoprolol exhibited a minimal improvement in STZ-induced bradycardia, whereas atenolol produced a further reduction in heart rate. Histological examination showed metoprolol treatment also prevented STZ-induced hypertrophy and some of the alterations in cardiomyocytes. In conclusion, our data suggest that metoprolol has some beneficial effects over atenolol with respect to cardiovascular complications associated with diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".