MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076972421 · doi:10.1159/000137308

Dual Histamine Receptor Mechanism in Guinea-Pig Lung

2008· article· en· W2076972421 on OpenAlexaff
Naresh Chand, L DeRoth

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimapritHistamineCarbacholMepyramineMetiamideChemistryInternal medicineGuinea pigEndocrinologyHistamine H2 receptorHistamine H1 receptorHistamine H4 receptorPharmacologyReceptorAntagonistBiologyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolated guinea-pig lung parenchymal strips (GPLS) relaxed in response to the selective histamine H2-receptor agonists, dimaprit and 4-methylhistamine (4-MeH), and to low doses of histamine (10(-9) to 10(-7) mol/l) and contracted in response to several spasmogens. The order of the relative activity of the spasmogens was 2-methylhistamine (2-MeH) greater than histamine greater than carbachol greater than 2-pyridylethylamine (2-PE). Dimaprit and 4-MeH also relaxed GPLS which were contracted by 2-MeH, 2-PE or carbachol. Metiamide (a selective H2-antagonist: 5 x 10(-5) mol/l inhibited or reversed relaxations to histamine, dimaprit and 4-MeH, and significantly enhanced contractile responses to histamine without altering responses to carbachol. Mepyramine (a selective H1-receptor antagonist: 10(-8) to 10(-6) mol/l antagonized histamine-induced contractions. This investigation shows: (1) histamine is more active than carbachol in GPLS and (2) the occurrence of histamine H1-receptors mediating contraction and H2-receptors mediating relaxation in guinea-pig lung.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207