MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alterations of nitric oxide synthase expression and activity during rat lung transplantation

2000· article· en· W2182716931 on OpenAlexaff
Mingyao Liu, Lorraine N. Tremblay, Stephen D. Cassivi, Xiao-Hui Bai, E. Mourgeon, Andrew F. Pierre, Arthur S. Slutsky, Martin Post, Shaf Keshavjee

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNitric Oxide and Endothelin Effects
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitric oxide synthaseEx vivoLungTransplantationLung transplantationIn vivoNitric oxideReperfusion injuryEndothelial NOSViaspanEndotheliumChemistryPharmacologyEndogenyIschemiaMedicineBiologyInternal medicineEnos

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decreased nitric oxide (NO) production has been reported during lung transplantation in patients. To study the effects of ischemia and reperfusion on endogenous NO synthase (NOS) expression, both an ex vivo and an in vivo lung injury model for transplantation were used. Donor rat lungs were flushed with cold low-potassium dextran solution and subjected to either cold (4 degrees C for 12 h) or warm (21 degrees C for 4 h) ischemic preservation followed by reperfusion with an ex vivo model. A significant increase in inducible NOS and a decrease in endothelial NOS mRNA was found after reperfusion. These results were confirmed in a rat single-lung transplant model after warm preservation. Interestingly, protein contents of both inducible NOS and endothelial NOS increased in the transplanted lung after 2 h of reperfusion. However, the total activity of NOS in the transplanted lungs remained at very low levels. We conclude that ischemic lung preservation and reperfusion result in altered NOS gene and protein expression with inhibited NOS activity, which may contribute to the injury of lung transplants.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologySame topicNitric Oxide and Endothelin EffectsFrench-language works237,207