Biological Actions and Metabolism of Currently Used Pharmacological Agents for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congestive heart failure (CHF), a complex clinical syndrome with impaired cardiac pump function, occurs as a consequence of mechanical deformities (pressure and volume overload), myocardial abnormalities (neurohormonal disorders, myocarditis, cardiomyopathies, inflammation and loss of cardiomyocytes) and rhythmic defects (conduction disturbances, fibrillation and tachycardia). Several studies have demonstrated that chronic activation of sympathetic and renin-angiotensin systems, alteration in myocardial substrate utilization, increase in intracellular Ca(2+) concentration, development of oxidative stress, release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and increased production of endothelin are responsible for the maladaptive cardiac and subcellular remodeling depending upon the type and stage of heart failure. A variety of pharmacological agents have been used to prevent the development and progression of CHF under different experimental and clinical settings. Although these drugs belong to specific classes, depending on their mechanism of action, individual drug biotransformation into different metabolites makes them distinct chemical moieties. Thorough understanding of biological effects of these pharmacological agents and metabolism is necessary to establish the basis for their preeminent use in clinical settings. The purpose of this review is to present a mechanistic understanding for the biological activities of different drugs used to treat CHF and to provide an insight of different metabolites formed after biotransformation of these chemical entities. Since development of CHF is a multifactorial and heterogeneous process, induction of combination regimens and improvement in patient compliance are the major challenges for future drug development.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".