Effects of peritoneal lavage fluid from radiation or/and burn injured rats on the growth of hematopoietic progenitor cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of peritoneal lavage fluids from radiation injury, burn injury and combined radiation-burn injury on the growth of hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats were divided into four groups: A radiation group (RG), a burn group (BG), a combined radiation-burn group (CRBG) and normal control group (NG). RG and CRBG rats were irradiated with 12 Gy, and burns of 30% total body surface area were generated in group BG and group CRBG. Peritoneal lavage fluids were collected and tested for their effects on the growth of erythrocyte progenitor cells or granulocyte-macrophage progenitor cells of BALB/c mice in vitro. RESULTS: The numbers of colony forming units-erythroid (CFU-E), burst forming units-erythroid (BFU-E) and colony-forming units-granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM) formed after treatment with lavage fluids from BG or CRBG were significantly higher than those from NG. However, fewer CFU-E, BFU-E or CFU-GM colonies were found after treatment with lavage fluid from the RG. In lavage fluid from BG and CRBG, the concentration of interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) was increased in comparison to NG and RG. Treatment with these cytokines had similar promoting effects on the growth of hematopoietic colonies and neutralizing antibodies inhibited these effects significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Burns increase the responsiveness of the system and help the proliferation of hematipoietic progenitor cells, while radiation decreases all these responses relative to both the controls and the burn plus radiation group.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".