Creatine phosphate administration in cardiac ischemia–reperfusion injury in rats: focus on differences between preconditioning, perconditioning, and postconditioning protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine and compare the influence of preconditioning, perconditioning, and postconditioning with creatine phosphate (PCr) on functional recovery and production of prooxidants in isolated rat hearts subjected to ex vivo ischemic–reperfusion (I–R) injury on a Langendorff apparatus. Wistar albino rats (male, n = 40) were divided into four groups: control and groups in which PCr (0.5 mmol/L, 5 min) was perfused before (Pre group), after (Post group), or during (Per group) ex vivo induced ischemia. PCr application was associated with the great benefits of preserving cardiac contractility (in Pre group 100.96% for +(d P/d t max) and 97.61% for −(d P/d t max), in Per group 96.72% for +(d P/d t max) and 95.60% for −(d P/d t max), and in Post group 143.84% for +(d P/d t max) and 104.36% for −(d P/d t max) in relation to the stabilization). In addition, PCr application prevented the increase in prooxidative markers during I–R injury in all therapeutic modalities. The most intensive benefits in the current investigation were observed when PCr was applied during the period of ischemia because the lowest fluctuations in the parameters of cardiac function and oxidative stress were observed. Overall, the results of this study highlight PCr-induced cardioprotection with promising prospects for future clinical use.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".