MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964066808 · doi:10.20381/ruor-16187

Inhaled nitric oxide protects against hyperoxia-induced apoptosis in the rat lung.

2000· article· en· W6964066808 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitric oxideApoptosisProinflammatory cytokineDNA fragmentationVasodilationLungDNA damageAgaroseAntioxidantLeak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhaled nitric oxide (NO) is frequently administered in combination with hyperoxic gas mixtures to effect pulmonary vasodilation in patients with pulmonary hypertension. NO was recently shown to have a protective effect against the injurious consequences of prolonged hyperoxia. The present study investigated the possibility that this protective effect may be attributable to the ability of NO to block apoptosis. Rats exposed to 100% O2 for 60 h developed severe lung injury consisting of pronounced vascular leak and alveolar apoptosis, as inferred from the presence of DNA fragmentation (positive ISEL staining and DNA ladders in agarose gels), and a decrease in constitutive pro-caspase-3 levels. However, the inclusion of NO (20 ppm) in the hyperoxic gas mixture significantly attenuated both the vascular leak and apoptosis. NO reversed the hyperoxia-associated changes in the activity of the redox-sensitive transcription factors NF-kappaB, AP-1 and Sp1 after 24 h. This protective effect was accompanied by a decrease in the level of the proinflammatory protein ICAM-1 and an increase in the cellular antioxidant glutathione. This study shows for the first time that NO can protect against both hyperoxia-induced apoptosis and vascular leak. The data suggest that the protection may occur at the transcriptional and caspase activation level.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207