Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre <i>in vivo</i> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a robust cardioprotective intervention in preclinical studies. To establish a working and efficacious RIPC protocol in our laboratories, we performed randomized, blinded in vivo studies in three study centres in rats, with various RIPC protocols. To verify that our experimental settings are in good alignment with in vivo rat studies showing cardioprotection by limb RIPC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. In addition, we investigated the importance of different study parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: Male Wistar rats were subjected to 20-45 min cardiac ischaemia followed by 120 min reperfusion with or without preceding RIPC by 3 or 4 × 5-5 min occlusion/reperfusion of one or two femoral vessels by clamping, tourniquet, or pressure cuff. RIPC did not reduce infarct size (IS), microvascular obstruction, or arrhythmias at any study centres. Systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on in vivo rat models of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury with limb RIPC showed that RIPC reduces IS by 21.28% on average. In addition, the systematic review showed methodological heterogeneity and insufficient reporting of study parameters in a high proportion of studies. CONCLUSION: We report for the first time the lack of cardioprotection by RIPC in rats, assessed in individually randomized, blinded in vivo studies, involving three study centres, using different RIPC protocols. These results are in discrepancy with the meta-analysis of similar in vivo rat studies; however, no specific methodological reason could be identified by the systematic review, probably due to the overall insufficient reporting of several study parameters that did not improve over the past two decades. These results urge for publication of more well-designed and well-reported studies, irrespective of the outcome, which are required for preclinical reproducibility, and the development of clinically translatable cardioprotective interventions.
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 | 0.046 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".