1,720,960 research outputs found
Canrenone and androgen receptor-active materials in plasma of cirrhotic patients during long-term K-canrenoate or spironolactone therapy.
No full textPlasma levels of canrenone and androgen receptor-active materials (ARM) were determined during long-term oral K-canrenoate or spironolactone therapy in cirrhotics with chronic recurrent ascites. Mean plasma canrenone level was approximately 3 times higher under K-canrenoate than under spironolactone treatment; moreover, the levels were not dose related. Either type of treatment did not affect plasma aldosterone and testosterone concentrations. Plasma ARM during K-canrenoate treatment did not change, whereas in the spironolactone group a 3-fold increase of ARM occurred (p less than 0.05). No dose-related effect was evident with the latter treatment. The lower incidence of gynecomastia in the K-canrenoate group was not correlated with values of plasma canrenone or ARM (p greater than 0.05). Our study questions the traditional view that the mode of action of spironolactone is via its metabolite canrenone. The two antialdosterone drugs, although equally effective in clearing ascites from cirrhotics, appear to act through partially different metabolites. The lower incidence of antiandrogenic or estrogen-like side effects during K-canrenoate seems to be related to metabolites other than canrenone itself
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
