MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170707933 · doi:10.1242/jeb.01606

Cardiac preload and venous return in swimming sea bass (<i>Dicentrarchus labrax</i>L.)

2005· article· en· W2170707933 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Sandblom, Anthony P. Farrell, Jordi Altimiras, Michael Axelsson, Guy Claireaux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreloadVenous return curveMean circulatory filling pressureCardiac outputCentral venous pressureStroke volumeAnesthesiaMedicineCardiac indexCardiologyInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressureCirculatory systemHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac preload (central venous pressure, P(CV), mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP), dorsal aortic blood pressure (P(DA)) and relative cardiac output (Q) were measured in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) at rest and while swimming at 1 and 2 BL s(-1). MCFP, an index of venous capacitance and the upstream venous pressure driving the return of venous blood to the heart, was measured as the plateau in Pcv during ventral aortic occlusion. Compared with resting values, swimming at 1 and 2 BL s(-1) increased Q (by 15+/-1.5 and 38+/-6.5%, respectively), P(CV) (from 0.11+/-0.01 kPa to 0.12+/-0.01 and 0.16+/-0.02 kPa, respectively), MCFP (from 0.27+/-0.02 kPa to 0.31+/-0.02 and 0.40+/-0.04 kPa, respectively) and the calculated pressure gradient for venous return (DeltaP(V), from 0.16+/-0.01 kPa to 0.18+/-0.02 and 0.24+/-0.02 kPa, respectively), but not P(DA). In spite of an increased preload, the increase in Q was exclusively mediated by an increased heart rate (f(H), from 80+/-4 beats min(-1) to 88+/-4 and 103+/-3 beats min(-1), respectively), and stroke volume (Vs) remained unchanged. Prazosin treatment (1 mg kg(-1) Mb) abolished pressure and flow changes during swimming at 1 BL s(-1), but not 2 BL s(-1), indicating that other control systems besides an alpha-adrenoceptor control are involved. This study is the first to address the control of venous capacitance in swimming fish. It questions the generality that increased Q during swimming is regulated primarily through Vs and shows that an increased cardiac filling pressure does not necessarily lead to an increased Vs in fish, but may instead compensate for a reduced cardiac filling time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207