MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038559191

The importance of the renal sympathetic nerves in the natriuretic response to imidazoline receptor agonists

2001· other· en· W7038559191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2001
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRilmenidineBlood pressureKidneyDenervationImidazoline receptorRenal arteryNephrectomyHeart rateFurosemide
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our preliminary dose--response study two I1 -imidazoline receptor agonists (rilmenidine and moxonidine) and two _ 2-adrenoceptor agonists (clonidine and guanfacine) were investigated. Based on those studies, we selected rilmenidine (10 nmol/kg/min) and guanfacine (10 nmol/kg/min) for our further studies. The renal sympathetic nerves have been proposed to be important in the renal actions of imidazoline receptor and _2-adrenoceptor agonists. We therefore determined the effects of acute renal denervation on the diuretic and natriuretic actions of rilmenidine, guanfacine and furosemide. The dose of furosemide (0.1 mg/kg) was selected based on the previous experiments in our laboratory. Male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent unilateral nephrectomy 7 to 10 days prior to the experimental day. Animals were anesthetized with pentobarbital. A tracheotomy was performed and the animal allowed breathing spontaneously. The carotid artery was cannulated for blood pressure and heart rate monitoring and the left jugular vein was cannulated for infusion of study drugs. The left kidney was exposed by a flank incision and the ureter was cannulated for the collection of urine. The kidney was denervated surgically and by painting the renal artery with phenol (10%) in 95% ethyl alcohol. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207