Pharmacological characterization of vasomotor activity of human musculocutaneous perforator artery and vein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vasospasm is one of the main causes of skin ischemic necrosis in cutaneous and musculocutaneous flap surgery, but the pathogenic mechanism is unclear. We planned to test the hypothesis derived from clinical impression that veins are more susceptible to vasospasm than arteries in flap surgery and, once established, that venous vasospasm is difficult to resolve and more detrimental than arterial vasospasm. To this end, we investigated the differences in sensitivity to vasoconstrictors and vasodilators between the human musculocutaneous perforator (MCP) artery and vein by measuring the isometric tension of arterial and venous rings suspended in organ chambers. Vascular contraction was expressed as a percentage of the tension induced by 50 mM KCl. Relaxation was expressed as a percentage of contraction induced by a submaximal concentration (3 x 10(-9) M) of endothelin-1 (ET-1). We observed that the vasoconstrictor potency of norepinephrine was significantly higher in the MCP vein than in the MCP artery. The vasoconstrictor potency of ET-1 and the thromboxane A(2) mimetic U-46619 were similar in the MCP vein and artery, but the maximal contraction induced by ET-1 and U-46619 was significantly higher in the MCP vein than in the MCP artery. On the other hand, the MCP vein was less sensitive than the MCP artery to the relaxation effect of nitroglycerin, nifedipine, and lidocaine. These differences between the human MCP artery and vein in response to vasoactive agents lend support to the clinical impression in flap surgery that veins appear to be more susceptible to vasospasm than arteries and venous vasospasm seems to be more difficult to resolve than arterial vasospasm in cutaneous and musculocutaneous flap surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".