MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Right ventricular wall microvascular response to increased pulmonary artery pressure with particular reference to age of onset

2008· article· en· W2269653793 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia E. Beighley, Yue Dong, Ouchi Hideo, M. Zamir, Erik L. Ritman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsVentricleMedicineCardiologyPulmonary arteryInternal medicineLumen (anatomy)PerfusionArterioleMicrocirculation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with congenital heart disease who have a morphological right ventricle (RV) serving as a systemic ventricle have an increased incidence of RV dysfunction. A different structural response of micro‐vessels to increased stress in the RV wall is a possible mechanism for this dysfunction. We examined this possibility by measuring the volume of myocardium perfused by arteries less than 200μm in lumen diameter (V) 7 weeks after a 5mg/kg IV injection of monocrotaline in three 2‐week old and three 18‐week old pigs. This information was obtained by use of 3D micro‐CT of transmural segments (~ 2cm 3 ) of the RV wall. The table provides the average values of V (mm 3 /mm 2 ± SD). Pulmonary artery pressures in the mature, treated pigs were 35±6 mmHg and in the juvenile were 25±2 mmHg. V did not differ from control in the treated 2.5‐month old pigs but trended down in the 6‐month old pigs. We conclude that the volume of myocardium perfused by an arteriole in the RV wall may be an indicator of the perfusion reserve available to the microcirculation in response to increased wall stress. A more definitive answer would require delayed study of the early onset treatment group at the age of 6 months. (Supported in part by NIH grant EB000305)

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→