MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322462904 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100018552

Expression of Urotensin II During Focal Cerebral Ischemic in Diabetic Rats

2014· article· en· W2322462904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lin Tian, Yunqian Li, Ying Jia, Min Zhou, Yunhe Gu, Jiping Qi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular, Neuropeptides, and Oxidative Stress Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrotensin-IIInternal medicineMedicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyIschemiaImmunohistochemistryVascular endothelial growth factorReceptorVEGF receptors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to explore the expression of urotensin II (UII), its receptor (GPR14), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), as well as their associations in the ischaemic brains of rats with focal cerebral ischaemia, under normal and diabetic conditions. METHODS: Diabetes mellitus (DM) was induced by injection of streptozotocin (STZ) into Sprague - Dawley rats. Focal cerebral ischaemia was induced by middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) four weeks after DM onset by STZ. Rats (n=80) were divided into four groups: normal control, DM, MCAO, and DM/MCAO. Immunohistochemistry and reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used to detect the expression of UII, GPR14 and VEGF in the diabetic and ischaemic brain. RESULTS: Expression of UII and GPR14 was increased at mRNA and protein levels in the DM and MCAO group compared with controls. In the DM/MCAO group, expression of UII and GPR14 was increased significantly in the ischaemic brain, and was accompanied by a significantly increased VEGF expression. CONCLUSION: Diabetes mellitus was seen to aggravate brain lesions after ischaemia, and UII may have an important role.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicCardiovascular, Neuropeptides, and Oxidative Stress ResearchFrench-language works237,207