Effects of Ozone Therapy on Cyclophosphamide-induced Urinary Bladder Toxicity in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the efficacy of ozone therapy (OT) in a rat model of cyclophosphamide-induced hemorrhagic cystitis (HC). METHODS: Forty Wistar Albino male rats were divided into five groups: sham, OT, cyclophosphamide (CP), OT+CP and CP+OT. Hemorrhagic cystitis (HC) was induced by intraperitoneal (i.p) administration a single dose of 100 mg/kg CP. OT was performed once daily for three days. The CP+OT group received OT (0.2 mg/kg) i.p 24 h after CP administration. CP was injected to the OT+CP group the day after the third course of OT. All animals were killed four days after CP administration. Bladder injury and oxidative stress parameters were determined from tissue samples. RESULTS: We found small, but non-statistically significant biochemical and histological changes in the animals treated with OT alone. CP administration induced cystitis, as manifested by a marked loss of urothelial cells, as well as hemorrhaging and edema in the bladder as determined by histopathological examination. It also caused a significant decrease in the endogenous antioxidant compound glutathione (GSH) and elevation of lipid peroxidation, and nitric oxide (NO) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) levels in the rats' urinary bladder tissue. OT was able to ameliorate these changes; however these effects were prominent in the CP+OT group when compared with the OT+CP group.: For example, the NO level in the CP+OT group was 68% of the OT+CP group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: OT prevented CP-induced urothelial damage by diminishing bladder oxidative stress, inflammation and NO levels. OT may help to ameliorate bladder damage induced by CP in the clinical setting.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".