MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092310628 · doi:10.1097/fjc.0b013e3181684026

The Effects of Dobutamine on Renal Sympathetic Activity in Human Heart Failure

2008· article· en· W2092310628 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Al‐Hesayen, John D. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDobutamineMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineInotropeHeart rateCardiologyRenal blood flowRenal functionSympatholyticNorepinephrineSympathetic nervous systemBlood pressureAnesthesiaHemodynamicsDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pathophysiology of the cardiorenal syndrome remains poorly understood. Renal sympathetic activity is increased in heart failure. It contributes to the sodium avid state, renal vasoconstriction, and reduced glomerular filtration rate that is characteristic of a large number of heart failure patients. Dobutamine is commonly used in the treatment of decompensated heart failure. We used the norepinephrine spillover technique to examine the effects of dobutamine on renal sympathetic activity in human heart failure. Dobutamine was titrated to increase the peak positive rate of change in left ventricular pressure by 25%. In 11 patients with heart failure, dobutamine infusion reduced efferent renal sympathetic activity by 50% (P < 0.003). This sympatholytic response was associated with an 11% increase in renal plasma flow (P < 0.03) and a 12% increase in glomerular filtration rate (P < 0.04). These findings suggest that dobutamine infusion is acutely associated with a beneficial effect on renal function. This observation is potentially related to a renal sympatholytic response to ventricular mechanoreceptor activation associated with the inotropic effects of beta-adrenergic receptor stimulation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular PharmacologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207