MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065986265 · doi:10.1159/000243897

Evidence of a Physiological Role for Bombesin in the Postnatal Development of the Rabbit Pancreas

2009· article· en· W2065986265 on OpenAlexaff
Eman M. Karkashan, Wallace K. MacNaughton, Grant Gall

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of the Neonate · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBombesinInternal medicineEndocrinologyAmylasePancreasEndogenyLipaseReceptorBiologyChemistryMedicineEnzymeNeuropeptideBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of chronic administration of bombesin (BBN) on the development of the pancreas and the role of endogenous BBN in the postnatal development of exocrine pancreatic function were investigated in suckling New Zealand White rabbits. BBN administered intraperitoneally (i.p) at various doses (1.25, 12.5 and 30 micrograms/kg body weight) to suckling rabbits for 13 days starting on day 4 of life induced pancreatic growth as characterized by dose-dependent increases in pancreatic wet weight, total protein content and total DNA content compared to littermate controls. The maximum effect was observed using bombesin at 30 micrograms/kg. This increase represented hyperplasia since there was no BBN-induced change in the protein:DNA ratio. Pancreatic amylase activity was significantly increased by all doses of BBN, with a maximal effect at 1.25 micrograms/kg. The specific BBN receptor antagonist [Leu13-psi(CH2NH)Leu14]-BBN, given i.p for 9 days at 30 micrograms/kg body weight starting on day 20 of life, significantly reduced the development of pancreatic amylase and lipase activities compared to controls (48 and 36% reductions, respectively). Our findings confirm the trophic effect of BBN on the neonatal pancreas and provide evidence of a physiological role for endogenous BBN-peptides in the development of pancreatic exocrine function.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of the NeonateSame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207