Marked depression of radiation-induced emesis in frogs following prior exposure to a brief dose of X-rays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute emesis response to harmful doses of X-rays on frogs (Rana porosa porosa) was examined. Results showed that the number of radioemesis events following exposure to 0.85 Gy was slightly higher than in the sham control animals. The increase in emesis action became more pronounced when the total dose of radiation was raised to 2.5 Gy. Only 1 frog out of a total of 12 did not show vomiting following radiation, while no response was observed in sham control animals. Note that animals in which the low dose rate of radiation was applied to whole body did not display any changes in the emesis response relative to control animals. The present studies, and those by others, showed that a brief dose of X-rays prior to a second exposure to a sub-lethal dose might induce a tolerance to radiation. An additional experiment was conducted to examine whether a small conditioning dose could induce a depression of radioemesis (tolerance) following an exposure to high dose X-ray. With prior exposure to 0.3 Gy, only 1 frog out of a total of 5 frogs vomited as a result of radiation exposure. Suppression of the emetic response became significant when the pre-radiation dose was decreased to 0.1 Gy. On the contrary, increasing the small conditioning dose to 0.5 Gy resulted in a remarkable rise of radiation-induced emesis. This results indicate that exposure to the smaller dose of X-rays elicits a tolerance effect to toxic dose level of radiation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".