Assessment of the Protective Effects of Amifostine against Cisplatin-Induced Toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to determine whether the toxicity of cisplatin, a chemotherapeutic alkylating agent, could be reduced by the use of amifostine and to determine whether amifostine alone could cause ototoxicity. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, animal study. METHODS: Auditory brainstem response click threshold, latencies, and blood work were used to measure ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and myelotoxicity before and 4 weeks after treatment. Groups of guinea pigs received either cisplatin alone (30 mg/kg), amifostine (1000 mg/kg), cisplatin plus amifostine (1000 mg/kg), or no agent. RESULTS: Amifostine reduced the hearing loss caused by cisplatin for many animals. Amifostine partially protected against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity and renal toxicity. We did not find evidence for myelotoxicity owing to cisplatin in this sample. CONCLUSION: Amifostine may have a role in reducing toxicity or permitting larger doses of cisplatin to be given, but toxicity can still be significant even with protection.
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".