Respiratory muscle training decreases diaphragm DNA damage in rats with heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory muscle training (RMT) promotes beneficial effects on respiratory mechanics, heart and lung morphological changes, and hemodynamic variables in rats with heart failure (HF). However, the relation between RMT effects and diaphragm oxidative stress remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the RMT effects on diaphragm DNA damage in HF rats. Wistar rats were allocated into 4 groups: sedentary sham (Sed-Sham, n = 8), trained sham (RMT-Sham, n = 8), sedentary HF (Sed-HF, n = 8), and trained HF (RMT-HF, n = 8). The animals underwent a RMT protocol (30 min/day, 5 days/week for 6 weeks), whereas sedentary animals did not exercise. Groups were compared by a two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests. In rats with HF, RMT promoted reduction in pulmonary congestion (p < 0.0001) and left ventricular end diastolic pressure (p < 0.0001). Moreover, RMT produced a decrease in the diaphragm DNA damage in HF rats. This was demonstrated through the reduction in the percentage of tail DNA (p < 0.0001), tail moment (p < 0.01), and Olive tail moment (p < 0.001). These findings showed that a 6-week RMT protocol in rats with HF promoted an improvement in hemodynamic function and reduces diaphragm DNA damage.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".