Histological assessment of intermediate- and long-term creatine monohydrate supplementation in mice and rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creatine monohydrate (CrM) supplementation appears to be relatively safe based on data from short-term and intermediate-term human studies and results from several therapeutic trials. The purpose of the current study was to characterize pathological changes after intermediate-term and long-term CrM supplementation in mice [healthy control and SOD1 (G93A) transgenic] and rats (prednisolone and nonprednisolone treated). Histological assessment (18-20 organs/tissues) was performed on G93A mice after 159 days, and in Sprague-Dawley rats after 365 days, of CrM supplementation (2% wt/wt) compared with control feed. Liver histology was also evaluated in CD-1 mice after 300 days of low-dose CrM supplementation (0.025 and 0.05 g x kg-1x day-1) and in Sprague-Dawley rats after 52 days of CrM supplementation (2% wt/wt) with and without prednisolone. Areas of hepatitis were observed in the livers of the CrM-supplemented G93A mice (P < 0.05), with no significant inflammatory lesions in any of the other 18-20 tissues/organs that were evaluated. The CD-1 mice also showed significant hepatic inflammatory lesions (P < 0.05), yet there was no negative effect of CrM on liver histology in the Sprague-Dawley rats after intermediate-term or long-term supplementation nor was inflammation seen in any other tissues/organs (P = not significant). Dietary CrM supplementation can induce inflammatory changes in the liver of mice, but not rats. The observed inflammatory changes in the murine liver must be considered in the evaluation of hepatic metabolism in CrM-supplemented mice. Species differences must be considered in the evaluation of toxicological and physiological studies.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".