Biliary, Fecal and Plasma Deoxycholic Acid in Rabbit, Hamster, Guinea Pig, and Rat: Comparative Study and Implication in Colon Cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bile acids are believed to play a role in the etiology of colorectal cancer, and high fecal excretion of secondary bile acids was correlated with increased incidence of colon cancer. Recently, it was also reported that there is an increase in plasma of the secondary bile acid, deoxycholic acid in men with colorectal adenomas. Since deoxycholic acid is formed in the colon and absorbed into the portal systemic circulation, it was suggested that the blood concentration of this bile acid reflects the level of exposure of colonic cells to deoxycholic acid. The objective of this study was to investigate whether plasma deoxycholic acid level represents the fecal content of this bile acid in several animal species with different bile acid composition and deoxycholic acid contribution to the bile acid pool. Eight rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, and rats were used in this study. Blood samples and feces were collected on days 1, 3, 5 and 7. Bile samples were obtained only on day 7. The plasma, fecal and biliary bile acids were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Bile acid composition and deoxycholic acid content varied greatly between the animal species studied. There was a variation in the concentration of total bile acids in the plasma and feces obtained at different times during the experiments, however, the bile acids profile remained constant throughout the study. The data obtained shows that although plasma bile acid profile was not similar to fecal bile acids profile, however, there was a significant correlation between the level of plasma and fecal deoxycholic acid. Plasma deoxycholic acid concentration might be a reliable biomarker for the degree of exposure of colon cells to this bile acid, and may be useful in further studies on the role of secondary bile acids in colon carcinogenesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".