MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2541562084 · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00263.2016

Dietary nitrate supplementation and exercise tolerance in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2016· article· en· W2541562084 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Hirai, Joel T. Zelt, Joshua H. Jones, Luiza G. Castanhas, Robert F. Bentley, Wendy Earle, Patti Staples, Michael E. Tschakovsky, John McCans, Denis E. O’Donnell, J. Alberto Neder

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyEjection fractionHeart failureInternal medicineStroke volumeHemodynamicsCrossover studyBlood pressureHeart rateCardiac outputNitric oxidePlaceboOxygenationAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endothelial dysfunction and reduced nitric oxide (NO) signaling are key abnormalities leading to skeletal muscle oxygen delivery-utilization mismatch and poor physical capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Oral inorganic nitrate supplementation provides an exogenous source of NO that may enhance locomotor muscle function and oxygenation with consequent improvement in exercise tolerance in HFrEF. Thirteen patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized crossover study to receive concentrated nitrate-rich (nitrate) or nitrate-depleted (placebo) beetroot juice for 9 days. Low- and high-intensity constant-load cardiopulmonary exercise tests were performed with noninvasive measurements of central hemodynamics (stroke volume, heart rate, and cardiac output via impedance cardiography), arterial blood pressure, pulmonary oxygen uptake, quadriceps muscle oxygenation (near-infrared spectroscopy), and blood lactate concentration. Ten patients completed the study with no adverse clinical effects. Nitrate-rich supplementation resulted in significantly higher plasma nitrite concentration compared with placebo (240 ± 48 vs. 56 ± 8 nM, respectively; P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of time to exercise intolerance between nitrate and placebo (495 ± 53 vs. 489 ± 58 s, respectively; P > 0.05). Similarly, there were no significant differences in central hemodynamics, arterial blood pressure, pulmonary oxygen uptake kinetics, skeletal muscle oxygenation, or blood lactate concentration from rest to low- or high-intensity exercise between conditions. Oral inorganic nitrate supplementation with concentrated beetroot juice did not present with beneficial effects on central or peripheral components of the oxygen transport pathway thereby failing to improve exercise tolerance in patients with moderate HFrEF.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations67
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207