MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081740441 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000005055

The Effects of Nitroglycerin on the Oxytocin Dose–Response Profile in Oxytocin-Desensitized and Naïve Human Myometrium: An In Vitro Study

2020· article· en· W3081740441 on OpenAlexaff
Gayani Jayasooriya, José C. A. Carvalho, Alice Luca, Mrinalini Balki

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxytocinMedicineMyometriumIn vitroInternal medicineObstetricsEndocrinologyUterus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nitroglycerin is used for acute reduction in uterine tone. Prolonged oxytocin exposure causes desensitization of oxytocin receptors. It is unknown if nitroglycerin exposure impacts the subsequent action of oxytocin in the setting of oxytocin receptor desensitization. This study investigated the effects of nitroglycerin on oxytocin-desensitized and oxytocin-naïve human myometrium and the subsequent response to oxytocin dose-response testing in vitro. METHODS: Myometrial samples from 17 elective cesarean deliveries were divided into strips and allocated to 1 of 4 groups: (1) oxytocin desensitized and no nitroglycerin; (2) oxytocin desensitized and nitroglycerin; (3) oxytocin naïve and nitroglycerin; and (4) oxytocin naïve and no nitroglycerin. Final analysis included 28 strips per group. Nitroglycerin groups were exposed to incremental concentrations of nitroglycerin, while no nitroglycerin groups were kept in control (physiological salt) solution. All groups then underwent oxytocin dose-response testing. Primary outcome was motility index (amplitude × frequency; grams × contractions per 10 minutes [g·c/10 min]). Secondary outcomes were amplitude (g), frequency (contractions/10 minutes), and area under the curve (g·s). All outcomes (nitroglycerin and oxytocin dose-response periods) were expressed as a percentage change from baseline. Values were log transformed, compared using regression modeling and reported as the ratio of 2 geometric means (relative difference). RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in motility index following nitroglycerin administration in oxytocin-desensitized versus oxytocin-naïve groups (relative difference = 19.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -32.6 to 109.9; P = .55). On oxytocin dose-response testing, motility index was highest in oxytocin-naïve and no nitroglycerin samples (group 4) (1.356 g·c/10 minutes) followed by oxytocin-naïve and nitroglycerin (group 3) (0.882 g·c/10 minutes), oxytocin-desensitized and no nitroglycerin (group 1) (0.769 g·c/10 minutes), and oxytocin-desensitized and nitroglycerin (group 2) (0.651 g·c/10 minutes) samples. Motility index was significantly reduced in group 1 vs 4 (relative difference = -43.3%; 95% CI, -66.5 to -4.1; P = .034) and group 2 vs 4 (relative difference = -52.0%; 95% CI, -70.9 to -20.8; P = .004). While in groups 3 vs 4, both amplitude (relative difference = -17.8%; 95% CI, -30.9 to -2.2; P = .27) and area under the curve (AUC; relative difference = -17.5%; 95% CI, -30.7 to -1.8; P = .030) were reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Nitroglycerin-induced relaxation was not different between oxytocin-desensitized and oxytocin-naïve human myometrial strips in vitro. However, oxytocin-induced contractility was attenuated after nitroglycerin exposure in both oxytocin-desensitized and oxytocin-naïve samples, with maximum attenuation observed in desensitized tissues. This finding warrants further clinical studies to explore uterine responsiveness to oxytocin in women with oxytocin-augmented labors after nitroglycerin administration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207