β-1 adrenoceptors and AT1 receptors may not be involved in catecholamine-induced lethal arrhythmias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An excessive amount of catecholamines produce arrhythmias, but the exact mechanisms of this action are not fully understood. For this purpose, Sprague–Dawley rats were treated with or without atenolol, a β1-adrenoceptor blocker (20 mg/kg per day), for 15 days followed by injections of epinephrine for cumulative doses of 4 to 128 μg/kg. Another group of animals were pretreated with losartan, an angiotensin receptor (AT1) blocker (20 mg/kg per day), for comparison. Control animals received saline. Varying degrees of ventricular arrhythmias were seen upon increasing the dose of epinephrine, but the incidence and duration of the rhythm abnormalities as well as the number of episodes and severity of arrhythmias were not affected by treating the animals with atenolol or losartan. The levels of both epinephrine and norepinephrine were increased in the atenolol-treated rats but were unchanged in the losartan-treated animals after the last injection of epinephrine; the severity of arrhythmias did not correlate with the circulating catecholamine levels. These results indicate that both β1-adrenoceptors and AT1 receptors may not be involved in the pathogenesis of catecholamine-induced arrhythmias and support the view that other mechanisms, such as the oxidation products of catecholamines, may play a crucial role in the occurrence of lethal arrhythmias.
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) | 0.001 | 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".