MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The binding and distribution of albendazole and its principal metabolites in <i>Giardia duodenalis</i>

2000· review· en· W2069159936 on OpenAlexaff
M.E. Oxberry, J.A. Reynoldson, R. C. A. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlbendazoleGiardiaBiologyGiardia lambliaAnthelminticChemistryMolecular biologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trophozoites of the protozoan parasite Giardia duodenalis were exposed to various albendazole concentrations for 4 h, washed, fixed and incubated with antibodies raised against albendazole and its two major metabolites albendazole sulphoxide and albendazole sulphone. Tubulin antibodies were also used. A peroxidase- or FITC-conjugated secondary antibody was used to detect the primary antibody with transmission electron microscopy or confocal laser scanning microscopy, respectively. Albendazole, a benzimidazole compound, was detected in the mid-dorsal region of trophozoites, albendazole sulphoxide in the posterior-dorsal region and albendazole sulphone in clusters above the median bodies. Tubulin was recognised in the ventral disk. This is the first indication that G. duodenalis may be capable of metabolising albendazole and the potential path of the metabolised drug traced within the trophozoite. Fluorescence measurements revealed that albendazole sulphoxide binding decreased and albendazole sulphone binding increased with exposure of the trophozoites to increasing albendazole concentration. This indicates that if albendazole was being metabolised by trophozoites, it occurred to a greater extent following exposure to higher albendazole concentrations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207