MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023678020 · doi:10.1007/s00204-011-0648-7

Carcinogenicity of deoxycholate, a secondary bile acid

2011· article· en· W2023678020 on OpenAlexaff
Carol Bernstein, Hana Holubec, A. K. Bhattacharyya, Vũ Quốc Huy Nguyễn, Claire M. Payne, Beryl Zaitlin, Harris Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Toxicology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersArizona Biomedical Research CommissionNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthOffice of Research and DevelopmentUniversity of Arizona Cancer CenterU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsCarcinogenBile acidChemistryGastroenterologyInternal medicineMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High dietary fat causes increased bile acid secretion into the gastrointestinal tract and is associated with colon cancer. Since the bile acid deoxycholic acid (DOC) is suggested to be important in colon cancer etiology, this study investigated whether DOC, at a high physiologic level, could be a colon carcinogen. Addition of 0.2% DOC for 8-10 months to the diet of 18 wild-type mice induced colonic tumors in 17 mice, including 10 with cancers. Addition of the antioxidant chlorogenic acid at 0.007% to the DOC-supplemented diet significantly reduced tumor formation. These results indicate that a high fat diet in humans, associated with increased risk of colon cancer, may have its carcinogenic potential mediated through the action of bile acids, and that some dietary anti-oxidants may ameliorate this carcinogenicity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations351
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of ToxicologySame topicDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsFrench-language works237,207