MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161933760 · doi:10.1139/y04-024

Effect of estrogen replacement treatment on ischemic preconditioning in isolated rat hearts

2004· article· en· W2161933760 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weijie Peng, Jing Yu, Sheng Deng, Jun-Ling Jiang, Han‐Wu Deng, Yuanjian Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvariectomized ratCardioprotectionEstrogenIschemiaInternal medicineMedicineEndocrinologyCardiac function curveIschemic preconditioningReperfusion injuryCardiologyAnesthesiaHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we tested the effects of long-term estrogen replacement treatment on myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury and on the cardioprotection of ischemic preconditioning in isolated hearts from ovariectomized rats. Ovariectomized rats were treated with 17beta-estradiol (30 micro g/kg/d, s.c.) for 12 weeks. Isolated rat hearts were perfused in the Langendorff mode. Heart rate, coronary flow, left ventricular pressure and its first derivative (+/-LVdp/dtmax) were recorded. Fifteen-min global ischemia and 30-min reperfusion caused a significant decrease of cardiac mechanical function, which were not affected by ovariectomy or estrogen replacement treatment. The isolated hearts in all groups could be preconditioned, and the cardioprotection afforded by preconditioning in the sham-operated rats was greater compared with ovariectomized rats with or without estrogen treatment. These results suggest that long-term estrogen replacement treatment exerts no effect on the inhibition of mechanical function after ischemia-reperfusion, and this study also suggests that estrogen does not affect ischemic preconditioning in isolated hearts of ovariectomized rats.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207