MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519581411 · doi:10.18433/j3js30

Effect of Radical Scavenger N-Tert-Butyl-α-Phenylnitrone on Stroke in a Rat Model Using a Telemetric System

2008· article· en· W1519581411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kieko Saito, Chinatsu Kobayashi, Masahiko Ikeda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFree Radicals and Antioxidants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)Blood pressureCircadian rhythmMedicineHeart rateBody weightFree radical scavengerScavengerInternal medicineAnesthesiaChemistryAntioxidantBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used malignant stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats (M-SHRSP) as a stroke model to explore the effects of the radical scavenger N-tert-butyl-alpha-phenylnitrone (PBN) on stroke. PBN was administrated in drinking water to M-SHRSP. Circadian rhythms in heart rate, blood pressure, and locomotive activity in M-SHRSP were monitored with a telemetric system, in addition to measurement of water intake and body weight. Stroke-onset was assessed by changes in neurological symptoms, water intake, and body weight. Circadian rhythms were basically the same between PBN-treated and control rats several days after stroke onset. Significant differences were seen in blood pressure, relative weight of brain and water intake, heart rate, and locomotive activity between two groups. As a result, no significant difference in age of stroke onset was seen between PBN-treated and control rats, but PBN-treated rats displayed prolonged mean life spans. PBN might be effective in prolonging life span.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicFree Radicals and AntioxidantsFrench-language works237,207