Effects of adenosine pretreatment on detection of free radicals in ischemic and reperfused canine gracilis muscle flaps by use of spin-trapping electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adenosine pretreatment attenuates free radical production and muscle damage in ischemic and reperfused canine skeletal muscle. ANIMALS: 9 healthy mixed-breed dogs. PROCEDURE: Dogs were anesthetized, and both gracilis muscles were isolated, leaving only the major vascular pedicle intact. Saline (0.9% NaCl) solution was injected into the artery supplying the control flap, whereas adenosine (10 mg) was injected into the contralateral artery. Ischemia was induced in both flaps for 4 hours. alpha-Phenyl-N-tert-butylnitrone was administered IV to each dog 1 hour prior to reperfusion. Following 15 minutes of reperfusion, effluent blood samples from each muscle flap were obtained and processed for spin-trapping electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. Muscle biopsy specimens were obtained for histologic evaluation, and dogs were euthanatized. RESULTS: EPR spectra of strong intensity were obtained from analysis of 5 of 9 paired samples. Signals identified were characteristic of oxygen- and carbon-centered free radical adducts. Signal intensity of spectra from adenosine-treated flaps was significantly less than that of control flaps; mean signal attenuation was 36% in the adenosine-treated group. Histologic evaluation of muscle flaps did not reveal significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treatment of canine muscle flaps with adenosine prior to a period of ischemia reduced but did not completely attenuate free radical production after reperfusion. However, adenosine pretreatment did not affect histologic abnormalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".