Toxicological assessment of orally delivered nanoparticulate insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subacute toxicological assessment on diabetic rats was conducted after 15 days of daily oral administration of nanoparticulate insulin. Haematological and biochemical analyses were conducted on blood and urine, biopsies performed on organs and tissues, and histology analysed by optical microscopy. Insulin-loaded nanoparticles alone did not change liver or kidney functions. The increase of some hepatic parameters was attributed to diabetes physiopathology and to chemical inducement of diabetes and not to the nanoparticle composition since diabetic controls showed the same variations. In terms of kidney function, parameters such as urea nitrogen and creatinine, were also similar to normal rats with the exception of glycosuria. This single effect was due to diabetes physiopathology and the method of induction, and not to the nanoparticle composition, since non-dosed diabetic rats showed the same alteration. Even so, glycosuria levels of animals dosed with insulin-loaded nanoparticles were lower than control diabetic rats which may indicate an effective hypoglycaemic response. Nanoparticles did not exhibit toxicity in haematological parameters. Finally, organ histology was similar between dosed animals and normal rats with the exception of pancreas histology.
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".