MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Terikalant and Barium Decrease the Area of Vulnerability to Ventricular Fibrillation Induction by T-Wave Shocks

2002· article· en· W2331684506 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangqian Qi, Pryam Varma, David Newman, Nikolaos Mamalias, Paul Dorian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular fibrillationBariumDefibrillationInternal medicineCardiologyDefibrillation thresholdMedicineAnesthesiaChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The area of vulnerability (AOV) to ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction by high-voltage shocks has been proposed as a measure of vulnerability to VF. Biphasic shocks spanning the T wave and ranging between 50 V and the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) to VF were delivered before and after terikalant (1 mg/kg) and barium (1.1 mg/kg load followed by 0.05-0.10 mg/kg/min maintenance) or vehicle in dogs. The AOV decreased by 34% and 28% (p < 0.01) after terikalant and barium (n = 8 dogs each), respectively. Mean ULV, defibrillation threshold (DFT), and ventricular vulnerability period (VVP) decreased by 16%, 23%, and 31% (p < 0.01), respectively, after terikalant, and by 25%, 17% (p < 0.01), and 13% (p = 0.08), respectively, after barium. Vehicle (n = 14) did not significantly alter any of these variables. The ULV was correlated with the DFT before and after terikalant (r = 0.78, p < 0.01) and barium (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Potassium channel blockers of the current reduce the ability to induce VF; this effect may be related to the anti-fibrillatory action of class III anti-arrhythmic drugs and their ability to decrease DFT.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular PharmacologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207