Hemodynamic Characterization of Arterialized and Nonarterialized Liver Transplants in the Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persistent hyperkinetic circulation after liver transplantation has been described in humans, but similar changes have not been well characterized in the rat model. This study aimed to investigate the hemodynamics of the systemic and splanchnic circulations in both arterialized and nonarterialized hepatic allografts. Orthotopic liver transplantation was performed in four groups of Sprague-Dawley rats. Group A comprised sham-operated rats with hepatic artery ligation that did not receive transplants; group B comprised rats that received transplants without arterialization; group C comprised sham-operated rats with intact hepatic artery that did not receive transplants; and group D comprised rats that received transplants with arterialization. Blood flow measurements were performed three weeks after the surgical procedure, using the radioactive microsphere method. The results showed that rats that received transplants exhibited a significantly higher cardiac index and lower systemic vascular resistance than the control rats. Splanchnic hyperemia was also present with increased mesenteric blood flow. However, there was no difference in hemodynamics between rats that received arterialized transplants and those that received nonarterialized transplants. Arterial collateral vessels from adjacent tissues were observed in the nonarterialized grafts; this was confirmed histologically. It is concluded that rats that undergo orthotopic liver transplantation exhibit hyperdynamic circulation, regardless of the arterial reconstruction procedure, possibly due to extensive collateral formation in the hepatosplanchnic circulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".