MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076222483 · doi:10.1159/000137585

Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide on Cardiac Function and Post-Ischaemic Functional Recovery in the Isolated ‘Working’ Rat Heart

2008· article· en· W2076222483 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Shattock, A Manning, David J. Hearse

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen peroxideVasodilationAortaHeart rateChemistryCardiac function curveInternal medicineCardiologyCoronary circulationAortic pressureHemodynamicsMedicineAnesthesiaBlood flowHeart failureBlood pressureBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of hydrogen peroxide on the normal and ischaemic myocardium were investigated using the isolated 'working' rat heart preparation. In the range 0-3 microM no changes in heart rate, aortic flow, coronary flow, or aortic pressure were observed. Between 3 and 30 microM, however, there was a dose-dependent fall in aortic flow and an accompanying increase in coronary flow, the total cardiac output remaining unchanged. At concentrations about 30 microM functional failure occurred. Following a 24-min ischaemic period during which time 6 microM hydrogen peroxide was infused via the aorta at a constant rate to remove any vasodilatory effect, all hearts failed to recover. In contrast, 50% of control hearts recovered pump function. In conclusion, therefore, hydrogen peroxide can reduce function in the aerobic working rat heart and may exert a vasodilatory effect. When this effect is eliminated hydrogen peroxide affords no protection during ischaemia and appears to exacerbate tissue injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207