Elevated mesenteric vascular pressure does not activate the splenorenal reflex in portal hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portal hypertension increases splenic venous outflow pressure, and triggers a splenorenal reflex reduction in renal blood flow (RBF). Previous studies suggest that mesenteric vascular outflow pressure, which rises in portal hypertension, may also influence renal function. We investigated the role of the intestine in modulating RBF. We reasoned that whereas occlusion of the portal vein rostral to the porto‐splenic junction would raise both mesenteric and intrasplenic pressure, thus initiating the splenorenal reflex and reducing RBF, occlusion caudal to the porto‐splenic junction would increase only mesenteric venous outflow pressure. Any change in renal sympathetic nerve activity could then be attributed to an intestinal/renal reflex arc. We measured splenic afferent and renal efferent nerve activity during portal vein occlusion. There was no difference in the rise in portal venous pressure when the portal vein was partially occluded rostral or caudal to the porto‐splenic junction (6.5 ± 0.2 to 14.6 ± 0.4 mmHg, n= 23). However, whereas rostral occlusion caused an increase in both splenic afferent (9.5 ± 2.1 to 14.7 ± 2.2 spikes/ sec, n=7) and renal efferent (9.1 ± 1.5 to 13.9 ± 3.0 spikes/sec, n=5) nerve activity, there were no such changes during caudal occlusion (Splenic Afferent: 9.3 ± 0.9 to 7.3 ± 1.5 spikes/sec, n= 6; Renal Efferent: 8.2 ± 2.2 to 5.0 ± 1.1 spikes/sec, n=5). In conclusion, the selective increase in mesenteric venous outflow pressure did not alter renal sympathetic nerve activity. We therefore found no evidence for intestinal‐renal reflex control of renal function during portal hypertension (HSFC, CIHR).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".