Comparison of Blood Vessel Wall Dimensions in Normotensive and Hypertensive Rats by Histometric and Morphometric Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The histometric method is often used in hypertension studies in order to reconstruct, from cross-sectional profiles of vessels in the contracted state, a hypothetical relaxed state of the vessels based on the measured length of the internal elastic lamina (IEL). In this study, the accuracy of the histometric method was tested by comparing values obtained with the histometric method from contracted vessels versus values from morphometric measurements of vessels of the same calibre but maximally relaxed. Mesenteric arteries from spontaneously hypertensive and normotensive Wistar-Kyoto rats were used. We found that the lumen size of the vessels was dependent on the methods of measurement and preparation. Lumen size, determined with the histometric method from contracted vessels, tended to be underestimated mainly because the IEL became shortened during contraction of the vessels. When vessels were prepared by perfusion fixation, a high perfusion flow rate (7.6 ml/min) caused expansion of the lumen in muscular (lumen diameter 120--250 microns) and arteriolar vessels (40--100 microns), but not in the elastic arteries (400--700 microns). The cross-sectional area of the vessel wall, however, remained unchanged when the vessels were either contracted with norepinephrine or expanded with high transmural pressure, so morphometric measurements of the vessel wall and its components can be done on both contracted and relaxed vessels. Our results suggest that the use of the histometric method for the estimation of relaxed lumen size from the contracted vessels is of very limited value. We also suggest that, for an accurate comparison of vessel wall dimensions between hypertensive and normotensive animals, cross-sectional area should be used instead of wall thickness alone.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".