Unraveling Interactions Between Anesthetics and the Endothelium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vascular endothelium is one of the largest organs in the body and consists of a single layer of highly specialized cells with site-specific morphology and functions. Endothelial cells play a vital role in the regulation of vascular tone in arterial, venous, microvascular, and lymphatic vascular beds. The endothelium also coordinates angiogenesis and controls cell adhesion, fluid homeostasis, and both innate and adaptive immunity. Fundamental research has shown that general and local anesthetics markedly modulate the biological activities of endothelial cells under aerobic and ischemia-reperfusion conditions, making the endothelium an important target of anesthetics in the cardiovascular system. Halogenated volatile anesthetics provide significant anti-inflammatory actions and protect the endothelium against ischemia-reperfusion injury, despite their inhibiting effects on endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation. They provide not only acute but also potential long-term, beneficial effects. Although many effects of IV anesthetics on endothelial function are controversial, or completely unexplored, propofol and opioids appear to have the most favorable profile with respect to the preservation of endothelial function. Some opioids and ketamine have stereoselective effects on the endothelium. Finally, there is experimental evidence to suggest important effects of anesthetics on the regulation of vascular permeability, proliferation of stem cells, including endothelial progenitor cells, and promotion or inhibition of tumor growth, potentially related to alterations in angiogenesis. However, most of these findings are from in vitro experiments and await confirmation in an in vivo setting. Thus, the clinical implications of these interactions remain uncertain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".