Enoxaparin does not ameliorate liver fibrosis or portal hypertension in rats with advanced cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background & Aims Recent studies suggest that heparins reduce liver fibrosis and the risk of decompensation of liver disease. Here, we evaluated the effects of enoxaparin in several experimental models of advanced cirrhosis. Methods Cirrhosis was induced in male Sprague‐Dawley ( SD ) rats by: (i) Oral gavage with carbon tetrachloride ( CC l4 ORAL ), (ii) Bile duct ligation ( BDL ) and (iii) CC l4 inhalation ( CC l4 INH ). Rats received saline or enoxaparin s.c. (40 IU /Kg/d or 180 IU /Kg/d) following various protocols. Blood biochemical parameters, liver fibrosis, endothelium‐ and fibrosis‐related genes, portal pressure, splenomegaly, bacterial translocation, systemic inflammation and survival were evaluated. Endothelial dysfunction was assessed by in situ bivascular liver perfusions. Results Enoxaparin did not ameliorate liver function, liver fibrosis, profibrogenic gene expression, portal hypertension, splenomegaly, ascites development and infection, serum IL ‐6 levels or survival in rats with CC l4 ORAL or BDL ‐induced cirrhosis. Contrarily, enoxaparin worsened portal pressure in BDL rats and decreased survival in CC l4 ORAL rats. In CC l4 INH rats, enoxaparin had no effects on hepatic endothelial dysfunction, except for correcting the hepatic arterial dysfunction when enoxaparin was started with the CC l4 exposure. In these rats, however, enoxaparin increased liver fibrosis and the absolute values of portal venous and sinusoidal resistance. Conclusions Our results do not support a role of enoxaparin for improving liver fibrosis, portal hypertension or endothelial dysfunction in active disease at advanced stages of cirrhosis. These disease‐related factors and the possibility of a limited therapeutic window should be considered in future studies evaluating the use of anticoagulants in cirrhosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".