Visceral leishmaniasis affects liver and spleen concentrations of amphotericin B following administration to mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) on the concentration of amphotericin B (AmB) recovered in the liver and spleen following either intravenous (AmBisome) or oral (iCo-009) AmB administration to mice. METHODS: Livers and spleens previously obtained from VL-infected BALB/c mice (following intravenous AmBisome or oral AmB treatments) were analysed for AmB concentrations. Then, non-infected BALB/c mice were divided into three treatment groups: a single dose of intravenous AmBisome (2 mg/kg, n = 5); and oral AmB every 12 h for 5 days (10 mg/kg, n = 6 and 20 mg/kg, n = 6). The animals were sacrificed 7 days after the initiation of the treatment and the livers and spleens were harvested for drug analysis by HPLC. RESULTS: The single intravenous injection of AmBisome resulted in a 77-fold lower concentration of AmB in infected compared with non-infected liver tissue, while the difference in AmB concentration in the spleen was only 5-fold. The multiple dose oral administration of AmB resulted in a 3-fold lower concentration of AmB in infected compared with non-infected livers for both oral doses, while the differences in AmB concentrations in the spleen were not statistically different for the oral treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: VL significantly lowered the concentration of AmB in the liver and the spleen when compared with uninfected animals. This effect seems to correlate with the degree of infection of the tissue. In the case of the intravenous liposomal formulation (AmBisome), the differences between the infected and non-infected tissues are of a higher magnitude than in the case of orally administered AmB (iCo-009).
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".