MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074571637 · doi:10.1002/mrm.20450

Potassium transport in Langendorff‐perfused mouse hearts assessed by <sup>87</sup>Rb NMR spectroscopy

2005· article· en· W2074571637 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Jilkina, Bo Xiang, Bozena Kuzio, John Rendell, V.V. Kupriyanov

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaNational Research Council Institute for Biodiagnostics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyPotassiumChemistryIsotopes of potassiumNuclear magnetic resonanceSpectroscopyRadiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the fluxes of a potassium congener (Rb(+)) in mouse hearts by (87)Rb MRS at 8.4T. The hearts were loaded with Rb(+) by perfusion with Krebs-Henseleit buffer, in which 50% of K(+) was substituted with Rb(+). We initiated Rb(+) efflux by changing the perfusion medium to Rb(+)-free buffer. Spectra were acquired every 1.85 min, and the kinetics of Rb(+) transport were analyzed by means of monoexponential fits. The rate constants of Rb(+) uptake and efflux were 0.0680 +/- 0.0028 and 0.0510 +/- 0.0051 min(-1), respectively (approximately 30% faster than in the rat heart). The ATP-sensitive potassium channel opener, P-1075 (5 microM), and mitochondrial uncoupler, 2,4-dintrophenol (50 microM), activated Rb(+) efflux from mouse hearts by approximately 35%. The mechanisms responsible for the differences in Rb(+) uptake and efflux under baseline conditions and stimulation, in comparison with rat hearts, are discussed. These data provide a background for studies of cardiac potassium transport in transgenic mouse strains.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207