The modulation of endothelial glycocalyx by sulodexide on the porcine model of enzymatic endothelial glycocalyx damage – a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Sulodexide is a glycosaminoglycan-based drug prescribed to patients with angiopathy. We performed a pilot study to investigate whether sulodexide positively modulates the endothelial glycocalyx (EG) layer and the microcirculation in a porcine model of EG enzymatic damage. The EG is a sugar-based endothelial lining that is involved in the physiology of the capillary wall and the pathogenesis of many diseases. Methods EG damage was induced in eight piglets by hyaluronidase III and heparanase I given intravenously. Four animals received sulodexide 600 IU intravenously before the enzymes and four animals after the enzymes were administered. Four animals constituted a control group. Sublingual microcirculation by side-stream dark field imaging and plasmatic concentration of syndecan-1 by ELISA were measured at baseline, 20 min after intervention, and at the 40th, and 60th minute onwards. The statistics were performed with a one-way ANOVA test with Turkey's correction for multiple comparisons testing. Timepoint comparison was performed by Student t-test or Mann-Whitney test. Results At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between the animal groups. After the intervention, the levels of syndecan-1 were significantly lower in the control group. While there were no differences between the two intervention groups. The sublingual microcirculation analysis showed that the DeBacker score was significantly higher in the control group. At 60 min, there was also a statistically significant difference in DeBacker score between the groups (8.1 ± 1.6 mm −1 in the group with enzymes given first and 11 ± 0.92 mm −1 in the group with sulodexide given first, p = 0.03). The analysis of the proportion of perused vessels did not show any statistically significant differences. Conclusion The results of the study demonstrated a working model of EG damage but no specific action of sulodexide on EG modulation. In the sublingual microcirculation analysis, the sulodexide reduced the fall in absolute tissue perfusion in 60 min.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".