MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063110788 · doi:10.3892/ijmm.8.5.533

Involvement of angiogenesis in weight-loss in tumor-bearing and diet-restricted animals

2001· article· en· W2063110788 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Toshiyuki Sumi, Osamu Ishiko, Hideo Yoshida, Y. Hyun, Sachio Ogita

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsAngiogenesisAdipose tissueVasculogenesisBiologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineVascular endothelial growth factorOncogeneMolecular medicineEndothelial stem cellCancer researchCell cycleCancerVEGF receptorsMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The body's weight loss mechanism while in a tumor-bearing state is still unclear. In this study, we investigated expressions of angiogenic factors in the adipose tissue of tumor-bearing and diet-restricted rabbits evaluating the differences between the two groups. We postulated that low nutrition induced vasculogenesis to transport nutrition in the adipose tissues of diet-restricted rabbits, unlike in tumor-bearing rabbits, and that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor (PD-ECGF) were related to angiogenesis of the adipose tissues. Although we investigated the expressions of VEGF and PD-ECGF immunohistochemically in tumor-bearing and diet-restricted rabbits, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Whether angiogenesis of the adipose tissue in the diet-restricted animals may be observed during the nutritional recovery period should be investigated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular MedicineSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207