Natriuresis following Central and Peripheral Administration of Agmatine in the Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agonists specific for the I1 imidazoline receptor increase sodium excretion following intrarenal (ir) infusion or intracerebroventricular (icv) injection in the rat. Although agmatine has been suggested to be a putative endogenous agonist for these receptors, the ability of this compound to alter sodium excretion has not been determined. The effects of agmatine, whether administered ir or icv, on blood pressure and solute and water excretion were studied in Sprague-Dawley rats. Agmatine was administered by icv injection (0, 10, 100, 300 or 1,000 nmol in 5 microliters) or by direct ir infusion (0, 3, 10, 30 or 100 nmol/kg/min at 3.4 microliters/min) in pentobarbitone-anesthetized rats. Agmatine administered by icv injection or ir infusion did not alter blood pressure or heart rate. Only an ir infusion of agmatine produced an increase in creatinine clearance, which occurred at the lowest (3 nmol/kg/min) and highest dose (100 nmol/kg/min). Concomitantly, the ir infusion of agmatine produced a dose-related increase in urine flow rate, but both routes of administration were associated with an increase in sodium excretion and osmolar clearance. Similar to previous reports with I1 imidazoline receptor-selective compounds, agmatine increased urine flow rate secondary to an increase in osmolar clearance at doses that failed to alter blood pressure. These results were consistent with agmatine functioning as a physiological agonist resulting in alterations in sodium excretion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".