MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230068877 · doi:10.25011/cim.v39i6.27524

Protective Effect of Intravesical Platelet-Rich Plasma on Cyclophosphamide-Induced Hemorrhagic Cystitis

2016· article· en· W4230068877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E Ozyuvali, ME Yildirim, T Yaman, B Kosem, E Cimentepe

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclophosphamideHemorrhagic cystitisPlatelet-rich plasmaSalineInterstitial cystitisMedicineEdemaInflammationPlateletPharmacologyIntraperitoneal injectionInternal medicineChemotherapyUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Hemorrhagic cystitis (HC) is the most common urotoxic side effect of cyclophosphamide (CYP). Platelet rich plasma (PRP) plays an important role in wound healing and inflammatory responses. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of intravesical PRP at treatment of interstitial cystitis (IC). 
 
 Methods: Female rats (n=24) were used. IC was induced by intraperitoneal injection of cyclophosphamide (CYP) and rats were randomly allocated to one of four groups (n = 6 per group): A control group; a sham group with saline (75 mg/kg; i.p.) instead of CYP on day 1, IC group, which was injected with CYP (150 mg/kg; i.p.) on day 1; and, an intravesical PRP‑treated group which was injected with CYP (150 mg/kg; i.p.) on day 1. On day 2, the rats in each group were sacrificed under anesthesia. 
 
 Results: Histological evaluation showed CYP administration induced severe IC with marked edema, hemorrhage and inflammation in CYP and CYP+PRP groups, but that PRP did not suppress these histopathological changes. 
 
 Conclusion: PRP did not suppress the histopathological changes in rats that had IC due to cyclophosphamide injection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207