MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Programming effects in sheep of prenatal growth restriction and glucocorticoid exposure

2001· article· en· W2184062498 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy J. M. Moss, Deborah M. Sloboda, Lyle C. Gurrin, Richard Harding, John Challis, John P. Newnham

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBetamethasoneGlucocorticoidFetusGestationEndocrinologyInternal medicinePregnancyMedicineSalineMean arterial pressureBlood pressureCorticosteroidBiologyHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our aim was to determine the postnatal effects of single and repeated glucocorticoid injections during late gestation. Repeated (104, 111, 118, 125 days) or single (104 days) injections of betamethasone or saline were given to the ewe or by ultrasound guided injection to the fetus (term 150 days). Lambs were born spontaneously and studied at 3 and 6 mo and 1 yr of age. Arterial pressure was measured at each age, and we performed intravenous glucose tolerance tests at 6 mo and 1 yr. Repeated maternal, but not single maternal or fetal, betamethasone injections prolonged gestation, reduced weight at birth and 3 mo, and was associated with low arterial pressure at 3 mo but not at 6 mo and 1 yr. Glucose metabolism was altered in all betamethasone treatment groups, regardless of the number or route of injections. Our data demonstrate that glucocorticoid-induced fetal growth restriction is associated with a transient reduction in postnatal arterial pressure, but glucocorticoid exposure with or without growth restriction alters glucose metabolism.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations188
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative PhysiologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207