Expression of cyclooxygenase isoforms in ulcerated tissues of the nonglandular portion of the stomach in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the expression of the cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 isoforms in naturally occurring ulcers of the nonglandular portion of the stomach in horses. SPECIMEN POPULATION: 38 specimens from ulcerated stomachs and 10 specimens from healthy stomachs. PROCEDURES: Specimens were collected at an abbatoir; for each specimen of squamous gastric mucosa, 1 portion was fixed in neutral-buffered 10% formalin for immunohistochemical analysis and another was frozen at -70 degrees C for immunoblotting analysis. Immunoreactivity to 2 antibodies, MF241 (selective for COX-1) and MF243 (selective for COX-2), was evaluated by a veterinary pathologist using a scoring system. Expression of COX-1 and COX-2 was confirmed by use of immunoblotting analyses. RESULTS: All specimens from healthy stomachs strongly expressed COX-1, whereas only 2 of 10 expressed COX-2. The expression of both isoforms varied greatly in the ulcerated mucosal specimens. Expression of COX-1 was significantly lower and expression of COX-2 was significantly higher in ulcerated versus healthy specimens. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increased expression of COX-2 in gastric ulcers of the squamous portion of the stomach in horses suggested a role for this enzyme in gastric ulcer healing.
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 | 0.001 | 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".