Pulmonary gemcitabine delivery for treating lung cancer: pharmacokinetics and acute lung injury aspects in animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gemcitabine, a nucleoside analogue for treating lung cancer, is clinically administered as an intravenous infusion. To achieve better patient compliance and more direct effect on the lung, we explored a new gemcitabine pulmonary delivery route and evaluated the pharmacokinetics and acute lung injury aspects in animals. Pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine were measured in Sprague-Dawley rats after intravenous (i.v.), intratracheal instillation by tracheotomy (i.t.t.), intratracheal instillation via orotrachea (i.t.o.), and intragastric (i.g.) administration of gemcitabine. Acute lung injury effects of the pulmonary delivery of gemcitabine were performed in Sprague-Dawley rats after i.t.o. and i.v. administration of gemcitabine and i.t.o. administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) as a positive control and physiological saline as a blank control. Indicators for acute lung injury that were evaluated included lung morphology, lung histopathology, lung coefficient, lung wet/dry weight ratio, total cell and classification counts in bronchoalveolar lavage cells (BALC), and total protein and TNF-alpha levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF). After i.t.t. or i.t.o. administration, gemcitabine was quickly absorbed, but i.g. administration led to an undetectable plasma gemcitabine concentration. Absolute bioavailability of gemcitabine after i.t.t. and i.t.o. administration was 91% and 65%, respectively. Gemcitabine given as i.t.o. administration did not cause any overt acute lung injury. All indicators for acute lung injury in the i.t.o. group were similar to those in the i.v. group or in the blank control, but significantly different from those in the positive control. In conclusion, the pharmacokinetics and acute lung injury studies suggest that pulmonary gemcitabine delivery would be a new and promising administration route.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".