The effects of dietary flaxseed on the Fischer 344 rat: I. Development, behaviour, toxicity and the activity of liver γ‐glutamyltranspeptidase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of exposure to, followed by consumption of, 10% flax chow from the 18th day of gestation to the 86th day after birth was examined in male and female Fischer 344 rats. Growth curves of the flax chow-fed rats were identical to those of regular chow-fed rats, as were such developmental milestones as pinna development, growth of hair and eye opening. Acoustical startle and the righting reflexes, developmental behavioural indices, were also the same. Blood glucose levels were comparable in flax chow-fed and regular chow-fed rats at all stages of development, indicating that flax is without effect on glucose balance. There were no signs of toxicity in the flax chow-fed rats since their plasma levels of alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (gammaGT) were the same as those of regular chow-fed rats. The activity of gammaGT displayed an increase in the livers of flax chow-fed rats after puberty, more so in the male-four-fold-than in the female-1.38-fold. This is suggestive of an estrogenic effect which implicates an effect of an estrogenic flax lignan. An hepatobeneficial effect of the flax-induced increase in liver gammaGT is discussed. In summary, dietary 10% flax chow is without long-term effect on growth, development and behaviour, is non-toxic and may be hepatoprotective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".