MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109848223 · doi:10.1177/107424840200700206

Beneficial Effects of Therapy on the Progression of Structural Remodeling During Healing After Reperfused and Nonreperfused Myocardial Infarction: Different Effects on Different Parameters

2002· article· en· W2109848223 on OpenAlexaff
Bodh I. Jugdutt, Vijayan Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Fibrosis and Remodeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnalaprilMedicineAmlodipineCardiologyVentricular remodelingMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineEjection fractionInfarctionACE inhibitorHeart failureAngiotensin-converting enzymeBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Structural left ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction is a complex process with several pathophysiologic descriptors that can be modified by pharmacotherapy. However, the possibility that different classes of antiremodeling agents might exert different effects on different remodeling parameters after reperfused and nonreperfused myocardial infarction has not been systematically studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured detailed left ventricular remodeling parameters in vivo (echocardiograms) repeatedly over 6 weeks and ex vivo (planimetry) at 6 weeks after myocardial infarction in 36 dogs randomized (factorial design) after reperfused or nonreperfused myocardial infarction to 6 weeks of twice daily oral therapy with the calcium channel blocker amlodipine (5 mg), the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (5 mg) or placebo, and 18 matching sham or control animals. Compared to placebo and control groups over 6 weeks, both agents reduced left ventricular loading and limited overall remodeling in both reperfused and nonreperfused groups, but there were pertinent differences. Enalapril limited the increase in left ventricular asynergy in the reperfused group. Both enalapril and amlodipine limited infarct zone thinning in the nonreperfused groups but increased infarct zone thinning in the reperfused groups, despite preserved infarct zone collagen with amlodipine. Enalapril decreased left ventricular diastolic volume and mass more than amlodipine in the reperfused group and increased left ventricular ejection fraction in the nonreperfused group. Both agents limited regional and global shape deformation in reperfused and non-reperfused groups. Diastolic wall stress in the infarct zone decreased with amlodipine, and increased with enalapril and reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Different antiremodeling therapies may exert different effects on different remodeling parameters during healing after reperfused myocardial infarction. Significant interactions occur during reperfusion. More than one variable may be needed for the comprehensive assessment of the antiremodeling efficacy of different therapies.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicCardiac Fibrosis and RemodelingFrench-language works237,207