MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326653174 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs-6143

Effect of glutamine on doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity: an echocardiographic assessment.

2009· article· en· W2326653174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
VK Todorova, Yihong Kaufmann, VS Klimberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiotoxicityVentricleMedicineEjection fractionDiastoleDoxorubicinCardiologyInternal medicineGlutamineHeart failureToxicityBlood pressureChemotherapyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract #6143 Background: Doxorubicin (DOX) is a widely used chemotherapeutic agent with a dose-dependent cardiotoxicity. Previous studies showed that dietary glutamine (GLN) reduced cardiac oxidative damages in rats treated with DOX through the increase of cardiac and blood glutathione, reduction of cardiac lipid peroxidation and reducing cardiac apoptosis. The present study aimed to examine further the effect of GLN on DOX-induced cardiac injury and to gain insight into the physiological aspects of this process by using high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging and Doppler echocardiography. Materials and Methods: Female Fisher 344 rats (n=12) were randomized into 2 groups: (i) GLN-supplemented (n=6) and ii) controls (n=6). GLN-supplemented rats received 1g/kg/day GLN via gavage starting 1 week before DOX administration. DOX (12 mg/kg) was injected i.p. in all animals. Each animal was examined before DOX administration, 3 days, 7 days, and 10 days after DOX administration using ultrasound imaging system Vevo 770 (VisualSonics, Toronto, ON, Canada). RMVTM 716 "high frame" scan head, designed for real-time small animal imaging applications, was used. The short-axis imaging was taken in B-mode to view the left ventricle (LV) movement during diastole and systole. Anatomical M-mode was used to obtain LV measurements including LV end-diastolic and systolic inner diameters, LV posterior wall, LV ejection fraction (%EF) and LV fraction shortening (%FS). The LV filling was evaluated by pulsed-Doppler sampling of the mitral valve (MV) inflow. The peak E-wave velocity (E), peak A-wave velocity (A) and the MV E/A ratio were obtained. All data and images were saved and analyzed by Vevo 770 Analytic Software (VisualSonics, Toronto, ON, Canada). Results: Ten days after DOX treatment the control animals had: i) increased LV posterior wall end-diastolic thickness of an average from 1.7 mm before DOX administration to 1.8 mm and end-systolic from 2.9 mm to 3.7 mm; ii) reduction of the %EF by 10% and %FS by 14%; and iii) increased MVE by 30% with a resulting MVE/A ratio >2.0; all these suggestive of the development of restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM). RCM, characterized by thickening and increased rigidity of the endocardium due to infiltration and fibrosis, restrictive ventricular filling with MVE/A >2.0 and in some cases reduction of the EF, has been reported in several clinical studies of patients treated with DOX. In GLN-supplemented rats of this study there was no statistically significant difference between posterior wall thickness before and after DOX administration, MVE/A ratio was maintained between 1.4 and 1.8; and EF was reduced by 2% only. Conclusions: The results from this study are in agreement with our previous data showing that GLN is able to reduce cardiac oxidative damages caused by DOX. This data further confirmed the safety of GLN supplementation and its cardioprotective effects during chemotherapeutic treatment with DOX. Acknowledgements: This work was supported by a grant from Susan G. Komen to VKT. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6143.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207