Capillaria hepatica-induced hepatic fibrosis in rats: paradoxical effect of repeated infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple exposures to parasitic agents are considered an important factor in the genesis of the most severe forms of the diseases they cause. Capillaria hepatica-induced septal fibrosis of the liver in rats usually runs without signs of portal hypertension or hepatic failure. After determining the hepatic profile of 15 animals during the course of a single infection, we submitted 20 rats to multiple Capillaria hepatica infections to determine whether repeated exposures would augment fibrosis production, transforming septal hepatic fibrosis into a true cirrhosis. Ten single-infection rats served as controls. A total of 5 exposures, with 45-day intervals, were made. Histological changes were followed by means of surgical liver biopsies, collected prior to infection and to each re-infection. Functional changes were minimal and transient. Although a slight recrudescence of fibrosis was observed after the first two re-infections and when the single-infected control group was re-infected at the end of the experiment, subsequent re-infections failed to increase the amount of fibrosis. On the contrary, there occurred quantitative and qualitative evidence of collagen degradation and suppression of parasite development. These paradoxical results are in keeping with the hypothesis that a complex immunological modulation participates in the mechanism of hepatic fibrosis induced by Capillaria hepatica infection in rats.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".