MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735918139 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2017-0125

Carbon dioxide water-bath treatment augments peripheral blood flow through the development of angiogenesis

2017· article· en· W2735918139 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yan‐Jun Xu, Vijayan Elimban, Naranjan S. Dhalla

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiogenesisBlood flowHindlimbIschemiaMedicineMalondialdehydeNitric oxideFemoral arteryAnesthesiaEndocrinologyOxidative stressVascular endothelial growth factorArteryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we investigated the effects of CO 2 water-bath therapy on blood flow and angiogenesis in the ischemic hind limb, as well as some plasma angiogenic factors in peripheral ischemic model. The hind limb ischemia was induced by occluding the femoral artery for 2 weeks in rats and treated with or without CO 2 water-bath therapy at 37 °C for 4 weeks (20 min treatment every day for 5 days per week). The peak blood flow and minimal and mean blood flow in the ischemic skeletal muscle were markedly increased by the CO 2 water-bath therapy. This increase in blood flow was associated with development of angiogenesis in the muscle, as well as reduction in the ischemia-induced increase in plasma malondialdehyde levels. Although plasma vascular endothelial growth factor and nitric oxide levels were increased in animals with peripheral ischemia, the changes in these biomarkers were not affected by CO 2 water-bath therapy. These results suggest that augmentation of blood flow in the ischemic hind limb by CO 2 water-bath therapy may be due to the development of angiogenesis and reduction in oxidative stress.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207