Metabolic and Functional Phenotype of Pathologic Cardiac Hypertrophy in Rodents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic phenotype of pathologic cardiac hypertrophy has been well characterized in rats but not yet in mice. Thus, we set out to determine the metabolic phenotype of pathologic cardiac hypertrophy in mice and compared it to that in rats. Accordingly, function, glycolysis and oxidation of glucose, lactate and palmitate were measured in non‐ischemic, normoxic isolated working hypertrophied (H) and control (C) hearts from male SD rats (R) and CD‐1 mice (M) with and without abdominal aortic constriction. Similar to that observed in rats, palmitate oxidation (PO) was decreased (28%) and glycolysis (GF) was increased (27%) in pathologically hypertrophied hearts compared to control hearts in mice with no significant change in lactate (LO) or glucose oxidation (GO). In rats, the contribution of palmitate oxidation to ATP production, calculated from rates of substrate utilization, was reduced in hypertrophied hearts while that of GO and GF were increased compared to control hearts. In contrast, only an increased contribution of GF to ATP was observed in hypertrophied hearts in mice. Thus, while the profile of substrate utilization in hypertrophied hearts in mice is similar to that in rats, the relative contribution of catabolic pathways that generate ATP differs between hypertrophied mouse and rat hearts. Hydraulic work per gram wet wt (HW/g) and metabolism (nmol/min/g dry wt) image
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Comparative rodent physiology of cardiac hypertrophy.
It experimentally studies cardiac metabolism in rodents, not research practice.
Comparative cardiac metabolism of hypertrophied rodent hearts; biomedical physiology.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".