Effect of portal hypertension on splenic blood flow, intrasplenic extravasation and systemic blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously shown that intrasplenic fluid extravasation is important in controlling blood volume. We proposed that, because the splenic vein flows in the portal vein, portal hypertension would increase splenic venous pressure and thus increase intrasplenic microvascular pressure and fluid extravasation. Given that the rat spleen has no capacity to store/release blood, intrasplenic fluid extravasation can be estimated by measuring the difference between splenic arterial inflow and venous outflow. In anesthetized rats, partial ligation of the portal vein rostral to the junction with the splenic vein caused portal venous pressure to rise from 4.5 +/- 0.5 to 12.0 +/- 0.9 mmHg (n = 6); there was no change in portal venous pressure downstream of the ligation, although blood flow in the liver fell. Splenic arterial flow did not change, but the arteriovenous flow differential increased from 0.8 +/- 0.3 to 1.2 +/- 0.1 ml/min (n = 6), and splenic venous hematocrit rose. Mean arterial pressure fell (101 +/- 5.5 to 95 +/- 4 mmHg). Splenic afferent nerve activity increased (5.6 +/- 0.9 to 16.2 +/- 0.7 spikes/s, n = 5). Contrary to our hypothesis, partial ligation of the portal vein caudal to the junction with the splenic vein (same increase in portal venous pressure but no increase in splenic venous pressure) also caused the splenic arteriovenous flow differential to increase (0.6 +/- 0.1 to 1.0 +/- 0.2 ml/min; n = 8). The increase in intrasplenic fluid efflux and the fall in mean arterial pressure after rostral portal vein ligation were abolished by splenic denervation. We propose there to be an intestinal/hepatic/splenic reflex pathway, through which is mediated the changes in intrasplenic extravasation and systemic blood pressure observed during portal hypertension.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".