Effect of a Misoprostol/Phenytoin Gel on Experimentally Induced Wounds in Brook Trout—A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topical treatment for wound management in fish is challenging due to their aquatic life. The objective of the present study was to assess the effect of a topical gel containing misoprostol and phenytoin on the healing of skin wounds in Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis. Four 16- × 8-mm, full-thickness wounds were created in each trout. Fish were randomly assigned either to the misoprostol/phenytoin group (14 fish) or to the untreated control group (5 fish). In fish from the misoprostol/phenytoin group, two randomly selected wounds were topically treated with a misoprostol/phenytoin gel, while the other two wounds were left without topical treatment. Follow-up and treatment were performed every 5 d for 120 d. Different macroscopic healing indexes were recorded over time, and histological characteristics of each wound were scored at the end of the study. Treatment with misoprostol/phenytoin was associated with delayed epithelialization and wound maturation in comparison with contralateral untreated wounds. The treatment was also associated with lower histological inflammation scores and increased dermal neovascularization. The untreated wounds of fish in the misoprostol/phenytoin group showed delayed maturation and decreased healing speed and had lower inflammation scores and increased neovascularization compared to untreated control wounds. Topical treatment of wounds in Brook Trout with misoprostol/phenytoin gel at the concentration used had a local and systemic deleterious effect on wound healing. The results of the present study do not support the use of this gel at this dosage for the treatment of wounds in Brook Trout.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".