Comparison of open and closed abdomen techniques for the delivery of intraperitoneal pemetrexed using a murine model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pemetrexed is an appealing agent to use for cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). However, the optimal method of pemetrexed delivery still remains undefined. Using a murine model, we compared the use of open and closed abdomen techniques on the absorption of intraperitoneal (IP) pemetrexed in different compartments. METHODS: ) at a perfusion temperature of 40°C during 25 min according to two techniques: open and closed. At the end of perfusion, samples in different compartments were harvested and the concentrations of pemetrexed were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: Absorption of IP pemetrexed in portal and systemic blood was significantly higher using the open compared to the closed abdomen technique (93.17 vs 52.50 µg/mL, P < 0.001) and (76.26 vs 51.65 µg/mL, P < 0.001), respectively. No difference was found between the two techniques on the peritoneal tissue concentration of pemetrexed (18.07 vs 19.17 µg/g, P = 0.51). CONCLUSION: Peritoneal absorption of pemetrexed is not modified by the use of either technique. However, systemic concentrations of pemetrexed increased using the open technique, suggesting it could increase systemic toxicity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".