Experimental evidence for the cardioprotective effects of red wine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both epidemiological and experimental studies have revealed that intake of wine, particularly red wine, in moderation protects cardiovascular health; however, the experimental basis for such an action is not fully understood. Because all types of red wine contain varying amounts of alcohol and antioxidants, it is likely that the cardioprotective effect of red wine is due to both these constituents. In view of its direct action on the vascular smooth muscle cells, alcohol may produce coronary vasodilation in addition to attenuating oxidative stress by its action on the central nervous system. The antioxidant components of red wine may provide cardioprotection by their ability to reduce oxidative stress in the heart under different pathological conditions. Mild-to-moderate red wine consumption improves cardiac function in the ischemic myocardium through the protection of endothelial function, the expression of several cardioprotective oxidative stress-inducible proteins, as well as the activation of adenosine receptors and nitrous oxide synthase mechanisms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".