[Amifostin in protection of kidney from cisplatinum injury].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Amifostin's effect on protecting kidney from cisplatinum (DDP) injury and its adverse reactions and safety. METHODS: 193 Patients were divided into two groups randomly: 102 in group A (treatment group) and 91 in group B (control group). Indexes such as blood routine, blood calcium, liver function, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), cretinine (C), and urinary N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG)/C and micro-albumin (MAB/C) were monitored at different intervals before or after treatment. RESULTS: In the two courses of treatment in both groups, the deviation (D) values of MAB/C before treatment and on D2 in group A were lower than those in grop B (P < 0.05), so were those before treatment and on D4, D6, D10 and D14 (P < 0.01). The D-values of NAG/C before treatment and on D4, D6, D10 and D14 in the first course of group A were obviously lower than those on the corresponding days in group B (P < 0.01), so were those before treatment and on D2, D4, D6, D10 and D14 in the second course (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The reduction of MAB/C and NAG/C by Amifostin in group A demonstrates that: Amifostin is able to effectively protect the renal function, regardless of the type of tumor. In contrast with group B, Amifostin in group A shows no protection for tumor in lung cancer and ovarian cancer. The main side effects of Amifostin are mild hypotension, nausea, vomiting and hypocalcemia in some patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".