The Effect of Doxorubicin and Exercise on the Formation of Nitric Oxide in Skeletal Muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doxorubicin (DOX) is an effective anti‐tumor agent which leaves patients with debilitating side effects such as fatigue and muscle weakness. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of both DOX and acute exercise on the formation of nitric oxide (NO) in skeletal muscle. Thirty male rats were randomly assigned to 5 groups (A through E, n=6 per group). All rats received an intraperitoneal injection of 4.5 mg/kg DOX. Rats in group A and E did not perform any exercise and were sacrificed 24 and 48 hours post injection respectively. Groups B and C swam for 60 minutes 24 hours post injection, and were sacrificed at 25 and 48 hours respectively. Group D swam for 60 minutes at 24 and 48 hours post injection and were sacrificed at 49 hours. The red and white gastrocnemius, soleus and plantaris muscles were immediately excised at each end point. Overall, no differences (P>0.05) in NO levels were observed in any of the muscles between any of the groups. However, consistently lower NO concentrations were observed in all muscles in the exercised versus non‐exercised groups. For example, NO concentration in the plantaris muscles were 18.4 ± 1.6, 17.5 ± 1.4 and 17.0 ± 1.3 μmol/mg in groups B, C and D respectively versus 31.5 ± 9.7 and 25.3 ± 4.5 μmol/mg for groups A and E respectively. These data suggest that acute exercise may play an important role in regulating NO metabolism post DOX administration, however exercise intensity and duration need to be better elucidated to maximize its effects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".