Predictors of<i>Torsades de Pointes</i>in rabbit ventricles perfused with sedating and nonsedating histamine H<sub>1</sub>-receptor antagonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several nonsedating histamine H1-receptor antagonists are associated with torsades de pointes ventricular tachycardia. The objectives of this study were to: (i) compare electrocardiographic, monophasic action potential, and arrhythmogenic effects of sedating and nonsedating H1-receptor antagonists, and (ii) identify correlates of drug-induced torsades de pointes in an isolated ventricle model. Isolated, electrically paced (1-3 Hz) rabbit ventricles were Langendorff-perfused with either drug-free Tyrode's solution or one of the following: (i) the sedating H1-receptor antagonist hydroxyzine (0.1-30 microM), (ii) cetirizine, a nonsedating metabolite of hydroxyzine (1-300 microM), and (iii) the nonsedating, putatively arrhythmogenic H1-receptor antagonist astemizole (0.1-30 microM). Volume conducted electrocardiographic signals and monophasic action potentials from the periapical left ventricular endocardium and epicardium were recorded. There were no apparent changes in control (n = 15) or hydroxyzine-perfused (n = 7) hearts. Cetirizine (n = 13) produced a mild biphasic electrocardiographic QT interval prolongation and was associated with early afterdepolarizations, but not with torsades de pointes. Astemizole (n = 11) lengthened QT intervals, and at high concentration (30 microM) induced torsades de pointes in 10 of 11 hearts (P < 0.001 vs. all other groups). These findings are consistent with previously reported repolarizing current inhibition by cetirizine, but may additionally indicate "compensatory" inhibition of inward currents at higher concentrations. By contrast, astemizole-induced changes are consistent with unopposed repolarizing current inhibition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".