MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611944395 · doi:10.25011/cim.v32i1.5080

Terazosin treatment suppresses basic fibroblast growth factor expression in the rat ventral prostate

2009· article· en· W2611944395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dionisios Mitropoulos, Aspasia Kyroudi‐Voulgari, Evangelia Christelli, Anastasios Zervas, P. Karayannacos

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFibroblast Growth Factor Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens
KeywordsBasic fibroblast growth factorEndocrinologyStromal cellInternal medicineImmunohistochemistryTerazosinProstateWestern blotBlotGrowth factorReceptorContractilityMedicineBiologyHyperplasiaBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Alpha1-adrenergic receptor antagonists may not act solely on smooth muscle contractility. We evaluated the in vivo effect of the alpha1 blocker, terazosin, on the expression of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) in the rat ventral prostate. METHODS: Wistar rats were treated with terazosin (1.2 mg/kg body weight, po, every second day) for 120 days. The expression of bFGF was assessed immuno-histochemically in tissue sections and by Western blotting in whole tissue preparations. RESULTS: Terazosin treatment did not affect prostate weight or histomorphology. In the control group, epithelial and stromal cells demonstrated positive staining for the anti-bFGF antibody. In contrast, the same staining in terazosin-treated specimens was either absent or extremely weak. An analogous difference was observed among the corresponding immunoblots. CONCLUSIONS: These findings implicate the reduction of bFGF expression by terazosin as a potential additional molecular mechanism of its action that may include alterations in peptide growth factor mediated prostate homeostasis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicFibroblast Growth Factor ResearchFrench-language works237,207