Synergistic protective effects between docosahexaenoic acid and omeprazole on the gastrointestinal tract in the indomethacin‐induced injury model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most commonly used drugs due to their antipyretic, anti‐inflammatory, and analgesic properties. However, NSAIDs can cause adverse reactions, mainly gastrointestinal damage. Omeprazole (OMP) exhibits gastroprotective activity, but its protection is limited at the intestinal level. For this reason, it is essential to utilize a combination of therapies that provide fewer adverse effects, such as the combined treatment of OMP and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), an omega‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acid with anti‐inflammatory, analgesic, and gastroprotective activities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacological interaction between DHA and OMP in a murine model of indomethacin‐induced gastrointestinal damage. The gastroprotective and enteroprotective effects of DHA (0.3–10 mg/kg, p.o.), OMP (1–30 mg/kg, p.o.), or the combination treatment of both compounds (3–56.23 mg/kg, p.o.) were evaluated in the indomethacin‐induced gastrointestinal damage model (30 mg/kg, p.o.). Since DHA and OMP exhibited a protective effect in a dose‐responsive fashion, the ED30 for each individual compound was determined and a 1:1 combination of DHA and OMP was tested. Isobolographic analysis was used to determine any pharmacodynamic interactions. Since the effective experimental dose ED30 (Zexp) of the combined treatment of DHA and OMP was lower than the theoretical additive dose (Zadd; p < .05) in both the stomach and small intestine their protective effects were considered synergistic. These results indicate that the synergistic protective effects from combined treatment of DHA and OMP could be ideal for mitigating damage generated by NSAIDs at the gastrointestinal level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".