MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Skeletal muscle as a possible compartment for the sequestering of Doxorubicin following administration

2012· article· en· W1633250892 on OpenAlexafffund
Sergio Fabris, Pamela Chenard, David A. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSkeletal muscleDoxorubicinIntramuscular injectionChemistryBolus (digestion)PharmacokineticsGastrocnemius muscleInternal medicineMedicinePharmacologyIntravenous bolusEndocrinologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doxorubicin (DOX) is an anti‐cancer chemotherapeutic and although widely used, its accumulation over time in skeletal muscle tissue has attracted little attention. The purpose of this research was to study intracellular DOX concentrations in skeletal muscle following its administration in the rat. A bolus injection of 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg of DOX was administered intraperitoneally in Sprague Dawley rats, and medial gastrocnemius samples were collected 24 and 96 hrs post injection. Intramuscular DOX concentrations were elevated (P<0.05) as compared to control at all time points. Following the 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg dose, intramuscular concentrations decreased (P<0.05) from 0.24±0.05 and 0.83±0.18 nmol/g at 24 hrs to 0.04±0.01 and 0.40±0.10 nmol/g at 96 hrs, respectively. Although there was a decrease in the intramuscular concentration of DOX over time, these levels remained higher (P<0.05) in the 4.5 mg/kg rats as compared to those administered the 1.5 mg/kg dose. Interestingly, at the lower dose, the intramuscular DOX levels had decreased 83% between 24–96 hrs, while at the larger dose this decrease was only 52%. These data clearly demonstrate that DOX accumulates in skeletal muscle in a dose dependant manner. Furthermore, it appears that the rate of removal or degradation of the intramuscular DOX is slower at increasing doses. These findings have clinical implications as skeletal muscle may be an important compartment for the sequestering of DOX from the circulation, hence limiting its therapeutic impact. This intramuscular accumulation may also have an effect on long‐term function as its metabolite has been shown to be cytotoxic. 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 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207