Comparison of coronary endothelial dysfunction in the working and nonworking graft in porcine heterotopic heart transplantation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The nonworking heterotopic heart transplantation model has been used extensively for the study of rejection and coronary endothelial function in different species. The effect of left ventricular loading in a working heart transplantation model, which may be associated with different coronary flow patterns and local nitric oxide release, on the development of coronary endothelial dysfunction and intimal hyperplasia, is unknown. METHODS: Porcine retroperitoneal "nonworking" heterotopic transplantations (n=10) and "working" heart (with left ventricular filling) transplantations (n=7) were performed. The left ventricular pressure was 0+/-0 mm Hg and 91+/-11 mm Hg in the nonworking and working groups, respectively. In the latter, the left ventricle to systemic arterial pressure ratio was 0.76+/-0.08. RESULTS: Sixty days after transplantation, epicardial coronary arteries from working and nonworking allografts developed a comparable selective endothelial dysfunction of Gi-protein mediated relaxations. There were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of intimal hyperplasia, but the severity of intimal hyperplasia was significantly greater in allograft coronary arteries from the working hearts. CONCLUSION: Working heterotopic allografts develop an endothelial dysfunction comparable with that of nonworking allografts, which validates the use of the simpler nonworking graft for the study of endothelial function. The similar prevalence of intimal hyperplasia with the development of more severe coronary lesions in working hearts may be due to differences in local nitric oxide release in these two models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".