Renal response to volume expansion: learning the experimental approach in the context of integrative physiology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a laboratory experience for upper-level science students that provides a hands-on approach to understanding the basics of experimental physiology. A pre-lab, interactive tutorial develops the rationale for this experiment by reviewing the renal and cardiovascular mechanisms involved in the response to extracellular fluid volume expansion. After a hypothesis is stated, an experiment is designed to determine the relative importance of dilution of plasma proteins to the overall renal excretory response following volume expansion with intravenous saline. In the lab, students collect data from two groups of anesthetized rats. The protocol involves continuous monitoring of arterial pressure and periodic collection of urine and blood samples after volume expansion with either isotonic NaCl or isotonic NaCl plus 5% albumin. A post-lab tutorial is used to analyze, interpret, and discuss the data. Students next prepare an oral presentation, practice it, and finally present their results and answer questions before peers and instructors. This overall experience involves all of the components of doing a "real" experiment, starting with a question that is not answered in general textbooks of physiology and finishing with an oral presentation of the results. Along the way, students gain a better understanding of a complex homeostatic response and learn the care and value of using animals in research and teaching.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".