MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197978 · doi:10.1136/gut.29.10.1326

Trends in Mirex Concentration in Lake Ontario Salmonines and Sediments

2004· article· en· W3197978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hilary Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceOceanographyGeologyHydrology (agriculture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the effect of fat consumption on the proliferation of the rectal mucosa, 30 normal volunteers (22 to 71 years) were randomly allocated to three groups: (a) basal low fat diet containing 30 g of fat per day; (b) the basal diet with doses of 30 g corn oil taken with each of the three meals: 120 g fat/day; (c) the basal diet with one dose of 90 g corn oil after the last meal: 120 g fat/day. Rectal biopsies were taken 15 cm from the anal verge after five days on the diets and mucosal cell proliferation was measured by labelling index (LI). The LI was significantly (p less than 0.01) higher in group (c) (9.2) than in group (a) (5.9), with group (b) intermediate (6.8). In multiple stepwise regression analysis, the data were best fitted with age and the variable indicating fat consumed as a bolus as predictors of LI (r2 = 0.39, p less than 0.001). In separate analyses the regression coefficient with age in the fat bolus group was 0.23, p less than 0.001. There was some tendency towards lower bile acids in the faecal water in group (a) than in groups (b) and (c) following the diets and between the bile acids and LI (for lithocholic acid r = 0.48, p = 0.01). These data show that dietary fat given as a bolus can lead to an increase in the proliferation of human colonic cells, possibly as a consequence of raised levels of cytotoxic acidic lipids in the faecal stream.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207