Blood thiols following amifostine and mesna infusions, a pediatric oncology group study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Pediatric Oncology Group study for metastatic Ewing's sarcoma used amifostine and mesna with the alkylating agents. To determine the fate of combined drug thiols, we measured thiol levels in plasma, red blood cells (RBC), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of four patients. We also conducted analogous measurements on two patients who received mesna alone and a volunteer's blood following in vitro treatment. Thiols were labeled with monobromobimane, separated on high-pressure liquid chromatography, and detected by fluorescence. Incubation of a volunteer's blood with mesna, WR-1065, or both revealed that cellular uptake of total reducible drug was approximately 10% of plasma level for mesna but approximately 60% for WR-1065. Cellular drugs were mainly the thiol form, whereas half of the plasma drugs were disulfides. Combined incubation with both thiols did not change the extent or form of uptake. WR-1065 and mesna prevented glutathione depletion by 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide. Results from patients were similar. WR-1065 and mesna appeared in the cells by the end of the drug infusions, although WR-1065 uptake was more efficient than mesna. The concentration-time profiles of mesna in RBC paralleled those in plasma. Amifostine administration during mesna infusion caused transient increase in mesna levels. Both agents increased blood cysteine and decreased total reducible cysteine. Mesna alone and mesna plus amifostine prevented cellular glutathione depletion. In conclusion, mesna is imported by RBC and PBMC, but less efficiently than WR-1065. When present at equal levels, these thiols do not influence each other's uptake. Adequate dosing of either drug is necessary for protecting the cells from toxic effects of alkylating agents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".