Cardiac Troponins Following Repeated Administration of an Iron Chelator – Salicylaldehyd Isonicotinoyl Hydrazone (SIH) – in Rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) are considered to be reliable biomarkers with sufficient sensitivity and specificity for cardiac injury in the majority of laboratory animals. The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of cTnT and cTnI in three groups of rabbits: 1) control (saline 1 ml/kg i.v.); 2) Salicylaldehyde Isonicotinoyl Hydrazone--SIH (50 mg/kg, once weekly, i.p.; partially dissolved in 10% Cremophor solution); 3) 10% Cremophor solution in water (2 ml/kg i.v.). The drugs were given once a week, 10 administrations. The concentration of cTnT was measured using Elecsys Troponin T STAT Immunoassay (Roche). The concentration of cTnI was measured using AxSYM Troponin I (Abbott). The linear regression model was applied to see if there is a dependence between cTnT and cTnI. The coefficient of determination was not acceptable in all groups. The highest value of R2 was found in the control group (R2 = 0.424). We may conclude that in rabbits meaningful dependence between cTnT and cTnI was not found. According to our long-term experiences cTnT seems to be more suitable cardiomarker in rabbits in comparison with cTnI where the data are characterized by the large scatter.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".