Comparative and Combinatorial Effects of Resveratrol and Sacubitril/Valsartan alongside Valsartan on Cardiac Remodeling and Dysfunction in MI-Induced Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and progression of heart failure (HF) due to myocardial infarction (MI) is a major concern even with current optimal therapy. Resveratrol is a plant polyphenol with cardioprotective properties. Sacubitril/valsartan is known to be beneficial in chronic HF patients. In this study, we investigated the comparative and combinatorial benefits of resveratrol with sacubitril/valsartan alongside an active comparator valsartan in MI-induced male Sprague Dawley rats. MI-induced and sham-operated animals received vehicle, resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, valsartan alone or sacubitril/valsartan + resveratrol for 8 weeks. Echocardiography was performed at the endpoint to assess cardiac structure and function. Cardiac oxidative stress, inflammation, fibrosis, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), creatinine and neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin were measured. Treatment with resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan + resveratrol significantly prevented left ventricular (LV) dilatation and improved LV ejection fraction in MI-induced rats. All treatments also significantly reduced myocardial tissue oxidative stress, inflammation and fibrosis, as well as BNP. Treatment with the combination of sacubitril/valsartan and resveratrol did not show additive effects. In conclusion, resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, and valsartan significantly prevented cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in MI-induced rats. The reduction in cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in MI-induced rats was mediated by a reduction in cardiac oxidative stress, inflammation and fibrosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".