The Therapeutic Effect of Natriuretic Peptides in Heart Failure; Differential Regulation of Endothelial and Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abnormal regulation of nitric oxide synthase activity represents an underlying feature of heart failure. Increased peripheral vascular resistance, and decreased renal function may be in part related to impaired endothelium-dependent nitric oxide (NO) synthesis. Paradoxically, the chronic production of NO by inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) in heart failure exerts deleterious effects on ventricular contractility, and circulatory function. Consequently, pharmacologically improving endothelium-dependent NO synthesis and the concomitant inhibition of iNOS activity would be therapeutically advantageous. Interestingly, natriuretic peptides have been shown to differentially regulate endothelial NOS (eNOS) and iNOS activity. Moreover, in both patients and animal models of heart failure, pharmacologically increasing plasma natriuretic peptide levels ameliorated vascular tone, renal function, and ventricular contractility. Based on these observations, the following review will explore whether the therapeutic benefit of the natriuretic peptide system in heart failure may occur in part via the amelioration of endothelium-dependent NO synthesis, and the concomitant inhibition of cytokine-mediated iNOS expression.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".