MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Nitric oxide and renal haemodynamics during postnatal maturation: Role of angiotensin receptors

2010· article· en· W3165898105 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Vinturache, Francine G. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocrinologyInternal medicineAngiotensin IINitric oxideChemistryReceptorAngiotensin II receptor type 1Renin–angiotensin systemAngiotensin receptorHemodynamicsMedicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate whether renal haemodynamic effects of nitric oxide (NO) in the newborn are mediated by activation of angiotensin type 1 (AT 1 ) or/and type 2 (AT 2 ) receptors, three experiments were carried out in conscious, chronically instrumented lambs aged ~one (N=5) and ~six weeks (N=6). Measurements were made before and after I.V. administration of antagonists selective to the AT 1 receptor (ZD 7155, experiment 1), the AT 2 receptor (PD 123319, experiment 2), and both receptors (ZD 7155+PD 123319, experiment 3) before and after administration of the L‐arginine analogue, L‐NAME. After ZD 7155 and ZD 7155+PD 123319, but not PD 123319 alone, renal vascular resistance (RVR) decreased in both age groups by ~25%. At one week, the RVR increase after L‐NAME was ~20% with ZD 7155, and ZD 7155 plus PD 123319, and ~16% with PD 123319 alone. At six weeks, the RVR increase after L‐NAME was ~40% with ZD 7155, and ZD 7155+PD 123319, and ~30% with PD 123319 alone. Therefore, ANG II modulates baseline renal haemodynamics as well as the renal haemodynamic effects of NO in an age‐dependent manner, through activation of both AT 1 and AT 2 receptors.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→