MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of low‐dose dopamine on cardio‐respiratory physiology in heart failure patients

2013· article· en· W987800107 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Heather Edgell, M. Sean McMurtry, Ian C. Paterson, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Mark J. Haykowsky, Jason R.B. Dyck, Michael K. Stickland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureCardiac indexCardiologyHeart rateBlood pressureInternal medicineVascular resistancePopulationStroke volumeVentilation (architecture)Cardiac outputDopamineHemodynamicsCardiac function curveAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous work has shown that carotid chemoreceptor (CC) inhibition increases cardiac output at rest in dogs with heart failure (HF). To translate this knowledge to humans, we recruited clinically stable HF patients (n=7; EF: 36±15%) and risk‐matched controls (CON; n=9; EF: 64±4%) from the Heart Function Clinic at the University of Alberta hospital, the Alberta HEART study, and from the general population. Ventilation, blood pressure, ECG, and aortic ultrasound were measured. Dopamine (DA) was infused at 2μg/min/kg to inhibit the CC. At rest, we found higher mean arterial pressure (98±14 vs 78±9mmHg; p=0.003) and higher total peripheral resistance index in CON (0.05±0.03 vs 0.04±0.01mmHg/mL/min/m 2 ; p=0.01). These differences could be due to more frequent anti‐hypertensive treatment in HF. The DA decreased ventilation in HF (7.6±2.1 vs 6.8±1.7L/min; p=0.04) but not in CON (6.7±2.0 vs 6.7±2.0L/min; p=0.96). While there was no difference in cardiac output index (Q) at rest between groups (p=0.15), after DA infusion HF patients had higher Q (CON:1.7±0.5 vs HF:2.6±0.5L/min/m 2 ; p=0.02). In HF, low‐dose DA inhibits the CC and increases resting cardiac performance. Funded by Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207