The differential accumulation of doxorubicin in the soleus and gastrocnemius muscle of the rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine intramuscular (IM) doxorubicin (DOX) levels in the soleus (S) and gastrocnemius (G) muscles of Sprague‐Dawley rats following the administration of DOX (1.5 or 4.5 mg/kg). Muscles were collected at 24, 48, 72 and 192 hrs post injection. DOX concentrations were elevated (P<0.05) as compared to control at all time points. Following the 1.5 mg/kg dose, concentrations peaked in both muscles after 48 hrs, but were higher (P<0.05) in the S (1.47±0.46 nmol/g) as compared to the G (0.78±0.24 nmol/g). Similarly, DOX was higher (P<0.05) in the S (0.40±0.13 nmol/g) than the G (0.08±0.02 nmol/g) after 192 hours. The 4.5 mg/kg dose resulted in similar peak DOX concentrations in both the G (2.43±0.52 nmol/g) and the S (2.46±1.35 nmol/g), but this occurred sooner (48 hr) in the S as compared to the G (72 hrs). DOX levels were not different between muscle groups following 192 hrs. These data not only support the notion that DOX accumulates in skeletal muscle in a dose dependent manor, but clearly demonstrate that fiber type differences are a factor in the rate of accumulation and removal or degradation of intracellular DOX. These findings have clinical implications as skeletal muscle may be an important compartment for the sequestering of DOX from the circulation, effectively limiting its therapeutic impact. Supported by NSERC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".