MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

It's not my nerves! Augmented pressor response to stress in multiparous rats is not associated with increased sympathetic outflow.

2010· article· en· W2304318719 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Kaufman, Jody Levasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocrinologyInternal medicineOutflowPeripheralBlood pressureMedicineCold pressor testSympathetic nervous systemSympathetic nerveChemistryHeart rateAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is epidemiological evidence that multiparity (multiple pregnancies) increases the long‐term risk for cardiovascular disease. We have shown that multiparous rats have an augmented pressor response to stress. This is due, at least in part, to an oxidative stress induced increase in vascular reactivity. We proposed that the augmented pressor response in the multiparous rats was also the result of a greater increase in sympathetic outflow. Age‐matched multiparous and virgin rats were implanted with telemetric devices to monitor renal sympathetic nerve activity (Telemetry Research) and blood pressure (DSI). One week later, they were exposed to 10 sec air jet. The stress‐induced increase in integrated mean amplitude of nerve activity was significantly higher in the virgin animals (Virgin: 3.2±1.6 uV to 36.5±12.2 uV; Multiparous: 0.8±0.6 uV to 8.9±6.2 uV; P<0.05). There was no difference between the groups with respect to the increase in spike frequency (Virgin: 28.2±7.8 to 36.6±10.0 spikes/sec; Multiparous: 16.6±2.8 to 28.6±1.4 spikes/sec; P>0.05). We conclude that, contrary to our hypothesis, the augmented pressor response of multiparous rats is due solely to increased vascular reactivity, not to a greater increase in sympathetic outflow. (HSFC)

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→