Effect of dietary hempseed intake on cardiac ischemia-reperfusion injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have significant, cardioprotective effects against ischemia. Hempseed contains a high proportion of the PUFAs linoleic acid (LA) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), which may have opposing effects on postischemic heart performance. There are no reported data concerning the cardiovascular effects of dietary hempseed intake. A group of 40 male Sprague-Dawley rats were distributed evenly into four groups that were fed for 12 wk a normal rat chow supplemented with hempseed (5% and 10%), palm oil (1%), or a 10% partially delipidated hempseed that served as a control. Plasma ALA and gamma-linolenic acid levels were significantly elevated in the rats that were fed a 5% or 10% hempseed-supplemented diet, but in heart tissue only ALA levels were significantly elevated in the rats fed these diets compared with control. After the dietary interventions were completed, postischemic heart performance was evaluated by measuring developed tension, resting tension, the rates of tension development and relaxation, and the number of extrasystoles. Hearts from rats fed a hempseed-supplemented diet exhibited significantly better postischemic recovery of maximal contractile function and enhanced rates of tension development and relaxation during reperfusion than hearts from the other groups. These hearts, however, were not protected from the occurrence of extrasystoles, nor were the increases in resting tension altered during ischemia or reperfusion as a function of any dietary intervention. Our data demonstrate that dietary hempseed can provide significant cardioprotective effects during postischemic reperfusion. This appears to be due to its highly enriched PUFA content.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".