Bosentan does not improve pulmonary hypertension and lung remodeling in heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction associated with heart failure (HF) carry a poor prognosis. Although endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) demonstrated benefits in pulmonary arterial hypertension, their efficacy in PH associated with HF was not specifically evaluated. 2 weeks after myocardial infarction (MI) rats received bosentan (100 or 200 mg·kg(-1)·day(-1)) or no treatment for 3 weeks. PH, RV hypertrophy and function as well as lung remodeling and function were evaluated. LV echocardiographic wall motion abnormality and function measured before treatment (2 weeks after MI) and after treatment (5 weeks after MI) were similar in MI control and MI treatment groups. HF induced PH and RV hypertrophy compared with sham: RV systolic pressure 39±5 versus 23±0.8 mmHg and RV/left ventricular+septum weight 52±7 versus 24±0.5% (all p<0.01). Bosentan did not significantly modify these parameters. In addition, bosentan did not improve depressed RV function measured by echocardiograph from the RV myocardial performance index and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion. The respiratory pressure-volume relationship revealed that HF caused a restrictive lung syndrome with histological lung remodeling and fibrosis, also not improved by bosentan. Dual ERA therapy with bosentan does not reduce PH, RV hypertrophy and lung remodeling and dysfunction associated with ischaemic HF.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".