Nonselective ET<sub>A</sub>/ET<sub>B</sub>-receptor blockade increases systemic blood pressure of Bio 14.6 cardiomyopathic hamstersThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the special issue (part 1 of 2) on Forefronts in Endothelin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the role of endothelin ETA and ETB receptors in congestive heart failure due to cardiomyopathy, the effect of chronic treatment with selective ETA- and ETB-receptor antagonists (atrasentan and A-192621, respectively), alone and in combination, was assessed on functional and biochemical parameters of 52-week-old Bio 14.6 cardiomyopathic hamsters. Compared with control animals, cardiomyopathic hamsters treated for 9 weeks with atrasentan showed no variation in MAP; however, selective ETB- and combined nonselective ETA- and ETB-receptor antagonists increased systemic blood pressure. After selective ETB-receptor blockade, plasma endothelin levels were augmented. Importantly, this increase was highly enhanced (more than 8-fold) by concomitant ETA-receptor antagonism. Furthermore, the left ventricle:body weight ratio of cardiomyopathic hamsters treated with A-192621, alone or in combination with atrasentan, was significantly increased. On the other hand, decreased left ventricular end-diastolic pressure was observed in cardiomyopathic hamsters after selective ETA- or combined nonselective ETA/ETB-receptor antagonism, while only selective ETA-receptor blockade reduced left ventricular endothelin levels. Our results suggest that, in congestive heart failure, ETB receptors are essential to limit circulating endothelin levels, which may argue for improved cardiac benefits after long-term treatment with highly selective ETA-receptor antagonists.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".