MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993753226 · doi:10.3892/ijo.19.4.785

Angiogenesis in the adipose tissue of tumor-bearing rabbits treated by cyclic plasma perfusion

2001· article· en· W1993753226 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Osamu Ishiko, T. Sumi, Hideki Yoshida, Y. Hyun, Sachio Ogita

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Oncology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsAdipose tissueAngiogenesisEndocrinologyPerfusionCachexiaInternal medicineNeovascularizationOncogeneBiologyMicrovesselApoptosisCancerMedicineCell cycleBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanisms of cancer cachexia have not been elucidated. We previously reported that cyclic plasma perfusion using non-coated charcoal was effective in cancer cachexia. In the present study we investigated the angiogenic effect of cyclic plasma perfusion on adipose tissue. Twenty rabbits were divided into two groups, i.e., tumor-bearing rabbits subjected to cyclic plasma perfusion (n=10, PP group), and tumor-bearing rabbits subjected to sham-perfusion (n=10, SP group). The changes in body weight, total body fat, and expression of angiogenic factors were investigated. Loss of body weight and total body fat was significantly suppressed in the PP group. Apoptosis of adipocytes was seen in both groups only in the early stage of tumor bearing. Lipolytic activity in the PP group showed a lower ratio than that in the SP group. In the PP group, increased microvessel density and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor (PD-ECGF) were seen at 40 days after transplantation. Similar findings were not seen in the SP group. These results suggest that cyclic plasma perfusion not only decreased lipolytic activity but induced angiogenesis in the adipose tissue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of OncologySame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207