Antioxidant Therapy for Prevention of Inflammation, Ischemic Reperfusion Injuries and Allograft Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidative stress results from an imbalance, an excess of oxidants, depletion of antioxidants or failure to repair oxidative damage induced by reactive oxygen species. A vast amount of evidence implicates oxygen-derived free radicals and high-energy oxidants as mediators in many pathological conditions of inflammation, shock, and organ responses to ischemia/reperfusion, which arise during a number of clinical surgical interventions, including transplant graft rejection and coronary bypass surgery, and in such diseases as, diabetes, atherosclerosis, hypertension, organ ischemia/reperfusion, cardiovascular inflammation, cardiac/brain infarction, cancer, pulmonary emphysema and autoimmune diseases. To eliminate or attenuate oxidative stress, antioxidant therapies have been developed and may be of great help to these patients. This review describes recent developments in the field of oxidative stress research and antioxidant function, summarizes new pharmacological strategies that are ongoing in antioxidant therapy with small molecules, free radical-scavenging enzymes, superoxide dismutases, catalase mimetics, flavonoids, vitamins and poly polymerase inhibitors, and presents experimental and clinical evidence of the role of antioxidants in diseases.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".