Combined metoprolol and ascorbic acid treatment prevents intrinsic damage to the heart during diabetic cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolic disturbances and oxidative stress have been highlighted as potential causative factors for the development of diabetic cardiomyopathy. The β-blocker metoprolol is known to improve function in the diabetic rat heart and ameliorates the sequelae associated with oxidative stress, without lowering oxidative stress. The antioxidant ascorbic acid is known to improve function in the diabetic rat heart. We tested whether a combination of ascorbic acid and metoprolol treatment would improve function further than each drug individually. Control and streptozotocin-induced diabetic Wistar rats were treated with metoprolol (15 mg·(kg body mass)(-1)·day(-1), via an osmotic pump) and (or) ascorbic acid (1000 mg·(kg body mass)(-1)·day(-1), via their drinking water). To study the effect of treatment on the development of dysfunction, we examined time points before (5 weeks diabetic) and after (7 weeks diabetic) development of overt systolic dysfunction. Echocardiography and working-heart-perfusion were used to assess cardiac function. Blood and tissue samples were collected to assess the severity of disease and oxidative stress. While both drugs improved function, only ascorbic acid had effects on oxidative damage. Combination treatment had a more pronounced improvement in function. Our β-blocker + antioxidant treatment strategy focused on oxidative stress, not diabetes specifically; therefore, it may prove useful in other diseases where oxidative stress contributes to the pathology.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".