EXPERIMENTAL INTRAPROSTATIC INJECTION OF BACILLUS CALMETTE-GUERIN: A FEASIBILITY AND SAFETY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the feasibility and safety of intraprostatic administration of bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) and determined the histological changes induced by this approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 36 healthy male beagle dogs 2.2 to 3.6 years old weighing 10.0 to 14.8 kg were randomly assigned to 6 experimental groups. Four groups were given intradermal BCG vaccination and 6 weeks later they were given 0 (group 1), 10 (group 2), 5 x 10 (group 3) or 10 (group 4) BCG organisms intraprostatically. An additional group received prevaccination, followed 6 weeks later by a dose of 10 BCG organisms intraprostatically and then 6 weeks of antibiotics (group 5). Another group receiving no prevaccination and 5 x 10 BCG organisms intraprostatically at week 6 were included (group 6). RESULTS: Adverse reactions (ARs) were seen in 12 dogs, including inguinal lymphadenopathy in 3, an anal lesion in 5, constipation in 7 and dysuria in 3. There was a trend toward an increased incidence of ARs in high dose groups 3 and 4, fewer ARs in group 5 and no ARs in group 6. There was minimal evidence of systemic dissemination of BCG in any group. Post-necropsy histological analysis indicated higher inflammation as well as glandular destruction in high dose groups 3 and 4. Antibiotics did not seem to lessen the histological response to intraprostatic BCG injection (group 5). Interestingly in nonvaccinated group 6 the level of inflammation as well as glandular destruction was higher. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that intraprostatic BCG administration in dogs is a safe and well tolerated procedure. It is free of major or long lasting serious complications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".