Morphological Study of Lead Induced Nephrotoxicity with Role of Zinc in Albino Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Damage to the kidneys is one of the primary toxic actions of the metals and nephrotoxicityby heavy metals has been the focus of much research. Lead is a heavy metal widely distributed in theenvironment. Its toxicity is a matter of concern as very low levels in the environment are found to effectunder-nourished population. Entering the body through multiple routes it gets distributed in almost everyorgan including kidneys altering its structure and functions. Objective: Heavy metals such as Lead are known to interact with the essential trace elements at the levelof absorption and also during metabolism. The present study was designed to observe morphological changesin renal tissue with special reference to Proximal tubules following concomitant administration of essentialmicronutrient zinc with lead. Design: Experimental study. Materials & Methods: 45 young adult albino rats selected for the study were distributed into 3 main groupsof 15 rats each. Group A served as control, Group B rats received Inj . Lead acetate 8 mg/kg intraperitoneallydaily and Group C in addition to lead received Inj . Zinc chloride 0.21 mg/kg intraperitoneally daily. Eachgroup was further subdivided into three sub-groups according to the period of treatment given i.e. 2,4 & 6weeks, at the end of which animals were sacrificed. The kidneys after processing and staining (PASHaematoxylin)were subj ected to detailed morphological examination o f proximal tubules. Results: The morphologic study in lead treated subgroups revealed changes indicating progressive distortionof renal cortical tissue with increasing time periods so that at six weeks a number of necrotic tubules withpyknotic nuclei were seen. Histological picture was close to that of Control and showed minimum distortionin rats co treated with zinc. Conclusion: Based on the study, it can be stated that lead induced nephrotoxicity particularly damages thestructure of proximal tubules and the damage is more pronounced with increasing time period. Concomitanttreatment with essential m icronutrient zinc reduces or delays the toxic effects o f lead.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".