MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087940999 · doi:10.1139/y04-114

Transport of endogenous nucleosides in guinea pig heart

2004· article· en· W2087940999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dragana Dekanski, Vesna Piperski, Jelena Tasić, Ivanka Marković, M. Jokanovic, Petar Stukalov, Dušan Mitrović

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdenosine and Purinergic Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogenyGuinea pigInternal medicineAdenosineChemistryEndocrinologyCardiologyPharmacologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of transport of endogenous nucleosides into cardiac tissue from coronary circulation. The study was performed on the isolated perfused guinea pig heart, using the rapid paired tracers single-pass technique. The maximal cellular uptake (U(max)) and total cellular uptake (U(tot)) of adenosine, deoxyadenosine, thymidine, uridine, and cytidine were determined. The cellular uptake of adenosine was significantly higher than the cellular uptake of other studied nucleosides. To elucidate the mechanisms of nucleoside transport, competition studies were performed and the influence of S-(p-nitrobenzyl)-6-thioinosine (NBTI) and sodium ion absence on U(max) and U(tot) was investigated. Self- and cross-inhibition studies indicated the saturable mechanism of nucleosides transport into cardiac tissue and the involvement of different transport mechanisms for purine and pyrimidine nucleosides. The study also showed that both equilibrative-sensitive (es) and sodium-dependent transport were responsible for adenosine and thymidine cellular uptake.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicAdenosine and Purinergic SignalingFrench-language works237,207