MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preconditioning reduces myocardial complement gene expression in vivo

2000· article· en· W89137955 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine J. Tanhehco, Koji Yasojima, Patrick L. McGeer, Edith G. McGeer, Benedict R. Lucchesi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiazoxideIn vivoIschemiaIschemic preconditioningWestern blotReperfusion injuryPharmacologyComplement systemMedicineGene expressionChemistryAnesthesiaInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyGeneBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This investigation examined the effect of preconditioning in an in vivo model of ischemia-reperfusion injury. Anesthetized New Zealand White rabbits underwent 30 min of regional myocardial ischemia followed by 2 h of reperfusion. Hearts preconditioned with two cycles of 5 min ischemia-10 min reperfusion (IPC) or with the ATP-sensitive K (K(ATP)) channel opener, diazoxide (10 mg/kg), exhibited significantly (P < 0.05) smaller infarcts compared with control. These treatments also significantly (P < 0.001 to P < 0.05) reduced C1q, C1r, C3, C8, and C9 mRNA in the areas at risk (AAR). The K(ATP) channel blocker 5-hydroxydecanoate (5-HD; 10 mg/kg) attenuated infarct size reduction elicited by IPC and diazoxide treatment. 5-HD partially reversed the decrease in complement expression caused by IPC but not diazoxide. There were no significant differences in complement gene expression in the nonrisk regions and livers of all groups. Western blot analysis revealed that IPC also reduced membrane attack complex expression in the AAR. The data demonstrate that preconditioning significantly decreases reperfusion-induced myocardial complement expression in vivo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207