MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043948521 · doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.12.014

Phytosterol Feeding Causes Toxicity in ABCG5/G8 Knockout Mice

2013· article· en· W2043948521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison L. McDaniel, Heather M. Alger, Janet K. Sawyer, Kathryn L. Kelley, Nancy D. Kock, J. Mark Brown, Ryan E. Temel, Lawrence L. Rudel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal Of Pathology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPhytosterolKnockout mouseToxicityNeuroscienceBiologyMedicineInternal medicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant sterols, or phytosterols, are very similar in structure to cholesterol and are abundant in typical diets. The reason for poor absorption of plant sterols by the body is still unknown. Mutations in the ABC transporters G5 and G8 are known to cause an accumulation of plant sterols in blood and tissues (sitosterolemia). To determine the significance of phytosterol exclusion from the body, we fed wild-type and ABCG5/G8 knockout mice a diet enriched with plant sterols. The high-phytosterol diet was extremely toxic to the ABCG5/G8 knockout mice but had no adverse effects on wild-type mice. ABCG5/G8 knockout mice died prematurely and developed a phenotype that included high levels of plant sterols in many tissues, liver abnormalities, and severe cardiac lesions. This study is the first to report such toxic effects of phytosterol accumulation in ABCG5/G8 knockout mice. We believe these new data support the conclusion that plant sterols are excluded from the body because they are toxic when present at high levels.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal Of PathologySame topicCholesterol and Lipid MetabolismFrench-language works237,207