The apoptotic effect of midazolam on the salivary gland of rats and the reversal effect by pilocarpine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the apoptosis in parotid glands of rats treated with midazolam associated or not with pilocarpine, 60 Wistar rats were assigned to 6 groups: control groups received saline solution for 30 days (S30) and 60 days (S60) and the other groups received pilocarpine for 60 days (P60), midazolam for 30 days (M30), midazolam for 30 days and 30 days of saline (M30 + S30), and finally midazolam for 30 days and 30 days of midazolam and pilocarpine (M30 + MP30). Histological sections were subjected to the TdT-mediated dUTP-biotin nick and labeling technique. The number of positive and negative cells was quantified, calculating the apoptotic index. ANOVA at 2 criteria and Tukey’s test were used. A greater apoptotic index was observed in the M30 (52.79 ± 9.01) and M30 + S30 (62.43 ± 8.52) groups when compared with the S30 (37.94 ± 5.94) and S60 (31.85 ± 9.18) groups, respectively (p < 0.05). There was no difference between M30 + MP30 (30.98 ± 6.19) and S60 (31.85 ± 9.18) groups regarding apoptotic index. Chronic administration of midazolam has been shown to increase the number of apoptotic cells in the parotid glands of rats. However, pilocarpine inhibited this effect, thus inhibiting the apoptosis.
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".