Effect of statins on oxidative DNA damage in diabetic polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidative stress induces nerve damage in type 2 diabetes mellitus and leads to diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) and can affect the DNA and antioxidant status. Statins have pleiotropic, protective effects on the peripheral nerves of patients with diabetes. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin and rosuvastatin on DNA damage in patients with DPN. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial comprised outpatients from Guadalajara, Mexico. The inclusion criteria were either gender, age 35–80 years, type 2 diabetes, glycated hemoglobin ≤10%, diabetic polyneuropathy stage 1/2, and signed informed consent. Patients who were taking antioxidant therapy or statins, had hypersensitivity to drugs, experienced organ failure, were pregnant or breastfeeding, or had other types of neuropathy were excluded. We assigned patients to placebo, ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg, or rosuvastatin 20 mg, and the primary outcomes were 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) for DNA damage, 8-oxoguanine-DNA-N-glycosilase (hOGG1) for DNA repair, and superoxide dismutase (SOD). Seventy-four patients were recruited. Nine patients were included as negative controls. There were no differences in 8-OHdG between the healthy subjects (4.68 [3.53–6.38] ng/mL) and the DPN patients (4.51 [1.22–9.84] ng/mL), whereas the hOGG1 level was 0.39 (0.37–0.42) ng/mL in the healthy subjects and 0.41 (0.38–0.54) ng/mL in patients with DPN at baseline (p = 0.01). SOD decreased significantly in patients with DPN (5.35 [0.01–17.90] U/mL) compared with the healthy subjects (9.81 [8.66–12.61] U/mL) at baseline (p < 0.001). No significant changes in DNA biomarkers were observed in any group between baseline and final levels. We noted a rise in hOGG1 in patients with DPN, without modifications after treatment. There was a slight, albeit insignificant, increase in SOD in patients who were on statins.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".