Oxidative Stress and Protective Effect of Erythropoietin on Methotrexate-induced Esophageal Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An experimental study was conducted to investigate the role of oxidative stress and effects of erythropoietin (EPO) on methotrexate-induced esophageal damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four female Sprague-Dawley rats were equally divided into 3 groups: Sham operation animals (group S) were administered subcutaneous injections of 0.2 mL of 0.9% NaCl; control animals (group MTX) were administered subcutaneous injections of methotrexate (5 mg/kg) and EPO-treated animals (group EPO) were administered subcutaneous injections of methotrexate (5 mg/kg) and EPO (2000 IU/kg) once daily for 4 consecutive days. At the fifth day, the distal 1.5-cm esophageal segments were harvested for biochemical and histologic investigations. Oxidative damage was assessed by measuring the levels of malondialdehyde and nitric oxide, and activities of superoxide dismutase and catalase in homogenized samples of esophageal tissue. Histologic damage to esophageal tissue was scored and total tissue damage scores were calculated. RESULTS: Malondialdehyde levels in the S and EPO groups were significantly lower than those in the MTX group (P<0.05). Catalase and superoxide dismutase activities, and nitric oxide levels in the S and EPO groups were significantly higher than those in the MTX group (P<0.05). Esophageal tissue damage was significantly less in the EPO group than that in the MTX group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Free radicals elevate in methotrexate given rats' esophagus and EPO has significant preventive effects on methotrexate-induced oxidative damage of esophagus in a rat model.
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".