MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060144964 · doi:10.1139/y00-071

Effect of angiotensin inhibition on the coronary artery lower pressure limit in anesthetized dogs

2000· article· en· W2060144964 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jacques R. Rouleau, Denis Simard, Jonh G Kingma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMedical Research CouncilHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAngiotensin IIBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicineArteryFissipediaMedicineAnesthesiaCarnivoraRenin–angiotensin system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The renin-angiotensin system plays a critical role in regulating vasoconstriction and vasodilatation that can influence myocardial blood flow and its transmural distribution. We tested the hypothesis that angiotensin inhibition can induce a leftward shift of the coronary autoregulatory pressure-flow relation and preserve distribution of myocardial blood flow at lower coronary perfusion pressures. We established circumflex artery pressure-flow relations under baseline conditions and after intracoronary enalaprilat or losartan potassium. Thereafter, transmural myocardial blood flow was measured at baseline and at the lower coronary pressure limit (LPL). With enalaprilat, the LPL was shifted leftward from 48 +/- 6 mmHg at baseline to 43 +/- 3 mmHg (P = 0.026); with losartan, the LPL was shifted leftward from 48 +/- 10 mmHg at baseline to 41 +/- 5 mmHg (P = 0.027). The leftward shift occurred while cardiac hemodynamics and MVO2 were maintained at control levels. These results indicate that angiotensin inhibition extends the range of coronary autoregulation to lower LPL while preserving myocardial blood flow distribution, a physiologic effect that might explain the lower incidence of coronary events in treated patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207