Angiotensin II reduces infarct size and has no effect on post‐ischaemic contractile dysfunction in isolated rat hearts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. In order to test the hypothesis that angiotensin II exacerbates myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion (IR) injury, we examined the effects of graded angiotension II concentrations of angiotensin II on IR injury in both working and non-working (Langendorff) isolated rat hearts. 2. Non-working hearts were subjected to 30 min aerobic perfusion (baseline) then 25 min of global, no-flow ischaemia followed by 30 min of reperfusion either in the absence (control, n=7) or presence of 1 (n=6) or 10 nM (n=5) angiotensin II). Recoveries of LV developed pressure and coronary flow after 30 min reperfusion in control hearts (58+/-9 and 40+/-8% of baseline levels, respectively) were no different from hearts treated with 1 or 10 nM angiotensin II. Infarct size (determined at the end of reperfusion by triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining) was reduced by angiotensin II in a concentration-dependent manner (from a control value of 27+/-3 to 18+/-4% and 9+/-3% of the LV, respectively). 3. Working hearts were subjected to 50 min pre-ischaemic (pre-I) aerobic perfusion then 30 min of global, no-flow ischaemia followed by 30 min of reperfusion either in the absence (control, n=14) or presence of 1 (n=8), 10 (n=7) or 100 nM (n=7) angiotensin II). In controls, post-ischaemic (post-I) left ventricular (LV) work and efficiency of oxygen consumption were depressed (43+/-9 and 42+/-10% of pre-I levels, respectively). The presence of angiotensin II throughout IR had no effect on LV work compared with control. 4. Thus, angiotensin II reduces infarct size in a concentration-dependent manner but has no effect on contractile stunning associated with IR in isolated rat hearts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".