Safety and Ergogenic Properties of Combined Aminophylline and Ambrisentan in Hypoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that concomitant pharmacological inhibition of the endothelin and adenosine pathway is safe and improves exercise performance in hypoxic humans, via a mechanism that does not involve augmentation of blood oxygenation. To test this hypothesis, we established safety and drug interactions for aminophylline (500 mg) plus ambrisentan (5 mg) in normoxic volunteers. Subsequently, a placebo-controlled study was employed to test the combination in healthy resting and exercising volunteers at simulated altitude (4,267 m). No serious adverse events occurred. Drug interaction was minimal or absent. Aminophylline alleviated hypoxia-induced headaches. Aminophylline, ambrisentan, and their combination all significantly (P < 0.05 vs. placebo) improved submaximal hypoxic exercise performance (19.5, 20.6, and 19.1% >placebo). Single-dose ambrisentan increased blood oxygenation in resting, hypoxic subjects. We conclude that combined aminophylline and ambrisentan offer promise to safely increase exercise capacity in hypoxemic humans without relying on increasing blood oxygen availability.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".