MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Dietary Octacosanol on Plasma Lipids and Atherosclerotic Lesion Development in Apo E‐KO Mice

2007· article· en· W37110334 on OpenAlexaff
Rgia A. Othman, Zuyuan Xu, Evelyn Fitz, Natali Riediger, Mohammed H. Moghadasian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNatural Products and Biological Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriglycerideInternal medicineCholesterolEndocrinologyLesionApolipoprotein BApolipoprotein EChemistryBlood lipidsMedicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Some studies have reported beneficial effects of dietary polycosanols on plasma lipids; however, long-term effects have not been determined yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of dietary octacosanol on plasma lipids and atherogenesis in Apo E-KO mice. Methods: Ten- male 4- week old apo E-KO mice were fed a 0.2% (W/W) cholesterol-supplemented diet with (treated group, n=5) or without (control group, n=5) 1% (W/W) octacosanol for 12 weeks. Body weight, plasma lipids and aortic atherosclerotic lesion size were measured in both groups of mice. Results: As compared to the control, octacosanol treatment was associated with significantly (p<0.05) reduced levels of plasma triglycerides and slightly increased levels of total cholesterol in the treated group. However, the extent and severity of aortic atherosclerosis were comparable between the two groups of mice. Conclusions: Our data suggest that dietary octacosanol may reduce plasma triglyceride levels in apo E-KO mice. Studies in other animal models may reveal the potential benefits of dietary octacosanol on progression and/or regression of atherosclerotic lesions. Acknowledgements: Octacosanol was a gift from Sino Pharmaceuticals Corp., Richmond, BC.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicNatural Products and Biological ResearchFrench-language works237,207