Comparison of Methods forPrediction of Nephrotoxicityduring Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drugs with nephrotoxic potential are continuously introduced into perinatal and pediatric medicine, and assessment of their relative toxicity is important. We compared different methods of assessment of renal damage during development in an attempt to establish their relative sensitivity, age and dose dependence. Newborn, 6- to 8-day-old and adult rats were treated for 7 days with intramuscular gentamicin (5, 10 or 20 mg/kg/day) or amikacin (5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day). Renal damage was assessed by serum and urine creatinine, urine N-acetyl beta-glucosaminidase and beta 2-microglobulin, cortical sphingomyelinase in vivo and in vitro and morphologic changes in light and electron microscopy. As expected, there was a dose-dependent damage, with gentamicin being more nephrotoxic than amikacin, and with newborn rats more resistant. The light- and electron-microscopic assessment were more sensitive than all other methods, followed by urinary N-acetyl glucosaminidase and then by beta 2-microglobulin. Sphingomyelinase changes occurred only at the highest doses of gentamicin.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".