Comparison between adenosine and isoflurane for assessing the coronary flow reserve in mouse models of left ventricular pressure and volume overload
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adenosine and high-concentration isoflurane are commonly used to induce hyperemia for assessment of coronary flow reserve (CFR) in mice, but high-concentration isoflurane may exacerbate cardiac dysfunction, leading to impaired CFR. However, there is no study be found comparing the effects of adenosine and isoflurane on CFR and corresponding cardiac function. High-resolution echocardiography and invasive hemodynamic assessment were performed in 20 mice 2 wk after transverse aortic constriction (TAC), aortic regurgitation (AR), and corresponding sham operation. CFR was calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to basal peak diastolic velocity (CFRpdv) or diastolic velocity-time integral (CFRdvti). In the sham-operated mice, no differences were observed between the effects of adenosine and isoflurane on CFR, left ventricular systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction and fractional shortening), left ventricular end-systolic pressure, maximal contraction and relaxation velocity (+dp/dt and -dp/dt), alteration of left ventricular pressure (ΔLVP), or ±dp/dt (Δdp/dt). But adenosine-derived results were significantly higher than isoflurane-derived ones in both the TAC and the AR groups. Moreover, CFRpdv or CFRdvti was positively correlated with both LVEF and LVFS. Compared with adenosine-derived CFR, isoflurane-derived CFR may be underestimated in the TAC and the AR mice, which is probably associated with suppressed cardiac function.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".