Reflex regulation by portal blood flow on renal function in healthy and cirrhotic rats: role of adenosine--a conceptual overview.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The liver is involved in the regulation of renal excretion of sodium and water. In this regard, the existence of a hepatorenal reflex (HRF) to regulate urine production has been suggested. An activated HRF, with an increased discharge from both hepatic afferent and renal efferent nerves, triggered through the activation of chemo- or mechanoreceptors in the hepatic portal circulation, stimulates renal sympathetic nerves, resulting in decrease in renal arterial blood flow and a increase in tubular reabsorption, leading to a reduced urine flow. An activated HRF has been considered as one of the mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of water and sodium retention seen in liver cirrhosis. The changes in the hemodynamics of hepatic portal circulation have been considered as the major event to trigger the HRF. Previous studies have been interpreted to indicate that intrahepatic portal pressure (PVP) is the trigger for the activation of the HRF. However, the suggestion that the increased activity from the hepatic afferent limb is dependent upon raised intraportal PVP would suggest a positive feedback in which fluid retention would lead to elevated pressure in healthy livers that would then result in more fluid retention. This positive feedback is counter-intuitive and unlikely to occur in physiological situations. An alternative hypothesis for the afferent signal that may activate HRF is the decrease in effective intrahepatic blood flow. In fact, experimental portal hypertension in healthy and diseased subjects is usually associated with a dramatic decrease in portal blood flow. We have suggested that the insufficiency in portal blood flow may result in a decrease in the washout of adenosine from the liver which may serve as the mediator to activate the HRF.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".