MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012988304 · doi:10.1177/107424840100600210

Effect of Chronic AT1 Receptor Antagonism on Postischemic Functional Recovery and AT1/AT2 Receptor Proteins in Isolated Working Rat Hearts

2001· article· en· W2012988304 on OpenAlexafffund
Rohit Moudgil, Yi Xu, Vijayan Menon, Bodh I. Jugdutt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenin-Angiotensin System Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedical Research CouncilMerck Canada
KeywordsMedicineAngiotensin II receptor type 1AntagonismReceptorAngiotensin IIPharmacologyInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine whether chronic angiotensin II (Ang II) type I receptor (AT(1)R) antagonism improves recovery of left ventricular (LV) function after ischemia-reperfusion (IR) and increases AT(1)R and Ang II type 2 receptor (AT(2)R) protein expression in isolated working rat hearts, rats were randomized to pretreatment with either losartan (30 mg/kg/day) or UP269-6 (3 mg/kg/day), or no drug (control), for 1 week or 3 weeks before IR (50 min perfusion, 25 min ischemia, 40 min reperfusion). In vitro LV work and power and ex vivo AT(1)R and AT(2)R proteins (immunoblots) were measured. Compared to baseline perfusion, LV work and power showed variable recovery in control, losartan, and UP269-6 groups. Compared to control, losartan preserved recovery of LV work and power while UP269-6 showed less recovery after IR at both 1 week and 3 weeks. Both antagonists increased AT(2)R but not AT(1)R protein. The duration of pretreatment did not affect the expression of AT(1)R or AT(2)R proteins. The results indicate that chronic AT(1)R blockade over 1 or 3 weeks increases AT(2)R (not AT(1)R) protein expression and may preserve but not improve postischemic functional recovery compared to controls in isolated working rat hearts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicRenin-Angiotensin System StudiesFrench-language works237,207