MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792319749 · doi:10.1177/1074248418755120

Inhibition of Na <sup>+</sup> /H <sup>+</sup> Exchanger With EMD 87580 does not Confer Greater Cardioprotection Beyond Preconditioning on Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury in Normal Dogs

2018· article· en· W2792319749 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Kingma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardioprotectionReperfusion injuryIschemiaCardiologyInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

promotes calcium overload and contributes to cellular necrosis. Cardioprotection afforded by pharmacologic blockade of the sodium-hydrogen exchanger subtype 1 (NHE1) is thought to be more remarkable than that obtained by ischemic conditioning (IC). The window of protection provided by IC pretreatment is maintained even when performed up to 48 hours before ischemia. In addition, the perception exists that combined NHE1 inhibition plus IC produces greater than additive protection against ischemic injury. The current study compared the efficacy of NHE1 blockade by N-[2-methyl-4,5-bis(methylsulfonyl)-benzoyl]-guanidine (EMD 87580 5 mg/kg) combined with first- or second-window IC on ischemic tolerance in dogs subject to 90-minute acute ischemia and 180-minute reperfusion. Infarct size (tetrazolium staining), vascular responses, and myocardial perfusion (microspheres) were assessed. EMD 87580 given before ischemia or before reperfusion did not reduce infarct size (compared to vehicle-treated group). Significant protection against tissue necrosis was obtained by both first- and second-window IC, but additive cardioprotection (ie, greater than that afforded by IC) was not observed by treatment with EMD 87580. Vascular reactivity in the infarct-related artery was not preserved after ischemia-reperfusion in any of the experimental groups. Likewise, either the pharmacologic or the nonpharmacologic interventions did not modify myocardial perfusion. These data demonstrate that EMD 87580 did not protect against ischemia-reperfusion injury regardless of the time of drug administration. Combined EMD 87580 and IC did not antagonize protection that was achieved by either first- or second-window IC alone; no additive protection beyond preconditioning was obtained. Further study is necessary to assess the value of NHE1 blockers as protective agents against myocardial injury.

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)0.001
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207