MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325314802 · doi:10.14288/1.0100371

Antifibrillatory actions of K+ channel blocking drugs

2011· article· en· W2325314802 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory N. Beatch

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlocking (statistics)Channel (broadcasting)Computer scienceTelecommunicationsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Class III antiarrhythmic drugs share the common mechanism of widening the cardiac action potential without affecting conduction velocity. This thesis reports on the actions of newly developed putative Class III antiarrhythmic drugs, tedisamil, KC 8851, RP 62719, UK 68798, and risotilide, as well as an ATP-sensitive K⁺ channel blocker, glibenclamide. Studies were performed to examine the actions of these drugs in acute myocardial ischaemia and possible mechanisms responsible for these actions. The hypothesis tested was that drug treatment prevented arrhythmias induced by acute myocardial ischaemia. Species dependent actions of these drugs on ECG and blood pressure were examined in rats, guinea pigs, pigs and primates. The five putative class III drugs listed above were assessed for antiarrhythmic activity in a conscious rat model of myocardial ischaemia. It was found that only tedisamil and KC 8851, which widened the Q-T[formula omitted] interval of the ECG (by up to 65%) , were effective at suppressing fibrillation in this species. None of the drug treatments decreased the incidence of ventricular premature beats. Tedisamil, but not glibenclamide, prevented tachycardias in a rat model of myocardial ischaemia- and reperfusion-induced arrhythmias. In an anaesthetized pig model of acute myocardial ischaemia, tedisamil and UK 68,798 were shown to mildly prolong the Q-T[formula omitted] interval by less than 20%, but protection against arrhythmias was equivocal. In further studies, tedisamil and UK 68,798 were compared to each other for effects on ventricular epicardial action potential morphology using intracellular recording in vivo, and effects on ventricular effective refractory period using electrical stimulation in vivo in both rats and guinea pigs. Tedisamil (4 mg/kg, i.v.) prolonged rat ventricular epicardial action potential duration fourfold in vivo, while UK68,798 (up to 1 mg/kg, i.v.) was ineffective in this species. Tedisamil (4 mg/kg, i.v.) widened guinea pig ventricular epicardial potentials by 80%, while UK 68,798 (25 μg/kg, i.v.) increased these by 30%. Action potential widening paralleled increases in ventricular refractoriness to electrical induction of premature beats. It was found that the species selective actions of these drugs was most likely related to differences in selectivity for K⁺ channels which contribute to repolarization in myocardium.

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 score0.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicAnalytical Methods in PharmaceuticalsFrench-language works237,207