MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131067097 · doi:10.1139/y09-033

Deep hypothermia impact on acid–base parameters and liver antioxidant status in an in vivo rat model

2009· article· en· W2131067097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norma Alva, Teresa Carbonell, J. Palomeque

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypothermiaGlutathione peroxidaseCatalaseGlutathioneAnesthesiaIn vivoOxidative stressAntioxidantSuperoxide dismutaseHypoxia (environmental)MedicineEndocrinologyChemistryInternal medicineOxygenBiochemistryBiologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although clinical hypothermia is used for reducing postischemic damage, injurious effects have also been reported. To determine whether hypoxia and oxidative stress are induced by systemic deep hypothermia, we used an in vivo rat model keeping the arterial Pco2 constant. Animals were divided into 4 groups: sham, 2 h deep hypothermia (21 degrees C), 1 h posthypothermia (rewarmed to 37 degrees C after 2 h deep hypothermia), and 3 h normothermia. Blood gases, portal vein blood flow, arterial pressure, and heart rate were monitored throughout the experiment. Liver enzyme antioxidant activity was also examined. The hemodynamic parameters decreased drastically during hypothermia, but were fully restored after rewarming. No changes in hepatic antioxidant activity (catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and superoxide dismutase) were observed. The redox level in liver (GSH/GSSG ratio) was preserved in hypothermia but decreased when animals were rewarmed. ALT did not increase and no evidence of tissue hypoxia was detected in liver regarding the restricted flow during hypothermia. With the described protocol, deep hypothermia is regarded as an experimental safe model.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207