Effect of adrenergic stimulation on Rb<sup>+</sup> uptake in normal and ischemic areas of isolated pig hearts: <sup>87</sup>Rb MRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of adrenergic stimulation in Rb(+) uptake in normal and ischemic areas of pig hearts was investigated using an agonist (dobutamine) and an antagonist (S-propranolol). The left anterior descending artery (LAD) in isolated pig hearts was cannulated to maintain adequate perfusion of the LAD bed (2.2-2.8 ml/min/g). Rb(+) loading was initiated by switching perfusion to Rb(+)-containing Krebs-Henseleit (KH) buffer in the presence of 0.1 microM dobutamine, 0.5 microM propranolol, or no drug (control), and the LAD flow was reduced to 10% of the baseline for 120 min. The flow through the LAD was then restored to normal and the drugs were removed. In all groups the rate of Rb(+) uptake obtained from serial (87)Rb images was severely depressed in the ischemic anterior wall relative to that in the normal posterior wall. Dobutamine increased the rate of Rb(+) uptake in the posterior wall (6.3% +/- 1.4% vs. 2.5% +/- 0.25% per minute in control) and did not affect the rate in the anterior wall (0.86% +/- 0.40% vs. 1.14% +/- 0.19% per minute in control). Propranolol did not affect Rb(+) uptake in either of these areas. We conclude that the stimulation of Rb(+) uptake by dobutamine is related to activation of Na(+)/K(+) ATPase and passive Na(+) influx in normal tissue. The lack of any effect of propranolol implies a low level of endogenous norepinephrine during low-flow (LF) ischemia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".