Repeated Oral or Subcutaneous LMWH Has similar Antithrombotic Activity in a Rat Venous Thrombosis Model: Antithrombotic Activity Correlates With Heparin on Endothelium When Orally Administered
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) endure as important drugs for thromboprophylaxis. Although clinical use relies on the subcutaneous (SC) route, our previous studies show that single-dose orally administered LMWHs have antithrombotic activity. Since thromboprophylaxis requires long-term treatment, we examined antithrombotic effects of subacute oral LMWHs in a rat venous thrombosis model and compared results to SC or single-dose oral administration. We measured LMWH in endothelium and plasma, weight change and complete blood counts (CBC). Oral LMWH tinzaparin (3 × 0.1 mg/kg/12 or 24 hours) or reviparin (3 × 0.025 mg/kg/24 hours) significantly decreased thrombosis compared to saline. In the subacute study (60 × 0.1 mg/kg/12 hours), oral or SC tinzaparin significantly reduced thrombosis compared to saline but not to single or 3 × 0.1 mg/kg/12 hours oral tinzaparin. Antithrombotic effects were similar between oral and SC administration. LMWH was found on endothelium following oral but not SC administration. Endothelial concentrations were significantly correlated with incidence of stable thrombi ( P = 0.021 and 0.04 for aortic and vena cava endothelium respectively, χ 2 test) and total thrombi ( P = 0.003 for vena cava endothelium). Anti-Xa activity was significantly greater for oral or SC LMWH than saline and significantly greater for SC versus oral LMWH. Values for CBCs were within normal ranges (mean ± 2 SD). There was no evidence of bleeding. Weight gain was similar between groups. In conclusion, subacute oral and SC LMWH have similar antithrombotic effects. Antithrombotic activity with oral administration is correlated with endothelial LMWH concentrations but not with plasma anticoagulant activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".