Influence of acebutolol and metoprolol on cardiac output and regional blood flow in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beta-adrenoceptor blocking drugs are widely used as effective antihypertensive and antianginal agents. We have determined the effect of beta-blockade in the rat to ascertain whether there are differences between metoprolol (MET) and acebutolol (AC) with respect to regional blood flow (RBF). Both AC and MET were administered as a single or multiple intravenous (iv) doses in Sprague-Dawley rats. Microspheres labelled with (85)Sr and (141)Ce were used to measure cardiac output (CO) and RBF before and after drug administration. CO and RBF were measured 1 and 10 min after the i.v. administration of AC (30 mg/kg) and MET (10 mg/kg). After acute administration of MET, CO decreased by 65% and 31% after 1 and 10 min measurements, respectively. These values were 54% and 28% for AC as compared with baseline values. After chronic administration of either AC or MET, however, there were no significant reductions in CO as compared with saline. Both MET and AC significantly reduced RBF in most organs either after 1 or 10 min measurements when compared with the baseline values. It is concluded that both AC and MET reduced CO and RBF after acute administration. The CO and RBF however, returned to normal after chronic administration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".