MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158803250 · doi:10.3109/15376516.2010.538750

A comparison of reactivating and therapeutic efficacy of bispyridinium acetylcholinesterase reactivator KR-22934 with the oxime K203 and commonly used oximes (obidoxime, trimedoxime, HI-6) in tabun-poisoned rats and mice

2010· article· en· W2158803250 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jiřı́ Kassa, Jana Žďárová Karasová, Růžena Pavlíková, Kamil Musílek, Kamil Kuča, Jiří Bajgar, Young‐Sik Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicology Mechanisms and Methods · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsTabunAcetylcholinesteraseOximePotencyPharmacologyChemistryPralidoximeAchéMedicineBiochemistryEnzymeIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potency of bispyridinium acetylcholinesterase reactivator KR-22934 in reactivating tabun-inhibited acetylcholinesterase and reducing tabun-induced lethal toxic effects was compared with the oxime K203 and commonly used oximes. Studies determining percentage of reactivation of tabun-inhibited blood and tissue acetylcholinesterase in rats showed that the reactivating efficacy of KR-22934 was slightly higher than the reactivating efficacy of K203 and roughly corresponded to the reactivating efficacy of obidoxime and trimedoxime in blood and diaphragm. On the other hand, the oxime KR-22934 was not able to reactivate tabun-inhibited acetylcholinesterase in the brain. The therapeutic efficacy of all oximes studied approximately corresponded to their reactivating efficacy. Based on the results, one can conclude that the oxime KR-22934 is not suitable for the replacement of commonly used oximes for the antidotal treatment of tabun poisoning in spite of its potency to reactivate tabun-inhibited acetylcholinesterase in the peripheral compartment (blood, diaphragm).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicology Mechanisms and MethodsSame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207