Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Systemic administration of cannabinoid (CB) receptor agonists affects bladder function, but the contribution of individual CB receptors during normal micturition has not been clearly defined.Our goal was to study if differences in urodynamic endpoints or in vitro bladder contractility exist between CB receptor type 2 knockout (CB2 -/-) and C57BL/6J control mice following CB2 receptor modulators.Methods: After ethical approval, female C57BL/6J (n=15) and CB2 -/-mice (n=15) underwent bladder catheterization three days prior to cystometry.Cystometry was performed in awake animals at baseline, and after sequentially giving of HU308 (CB2 agonist) followed by AM630 (CB2 antagonist).Comparisons of effects were made with ANOVA of repeated measures.Bladders were extracted for in vitro assessment of contractility to carbachol and electrical field stimulation (EFS).Results: Bladder capacity (BC) in C57BL/6J mice was increased from baseline by HU308, and then decreased after AM630 (p<0.05).Similarly, intercontraction interval (ICI) increased from baseline with HU308, and then decreased with AM630.CB2 -/-mice had at baseline a lower maximal pressure (MP), basal pressure (BP) , and area under the curve (AUC), and a higher ICI, BC and compliance than controls (p<0.05).AM630 in CB2 -/-mice increased ICI, BC, MP and TP, and decreased BP (p<0.05).There were no differences in contractility after carbachol or EFS between both groups.Conclusion: Indicating a role for the CB2 receptor in afferent micturition signals in normal mice, CB2 receptor agonism modified ICI and BC.CB2 -/-mice had lower pressures, along with a longer ICI and larger BC and compliance than C57BL/6J.These differences may be explained by compensatory up-regulation of other signals due to the knockout of CB2.Further investigations are necessary to understand the reverse effects by AM630 in CB2-/-and control mice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.896 | 0.687 |
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".