MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237828441 · doi:10.1080/01635581.2001.9680619

Conjugated Linoleic Acid Does Not Inhibit Development of Aberrant Crypt Foci in Colons of Male Sprague-Dawley Rats

2001· article· en· W4237828441 on OpenAlexaff
Kafi N. Ealey, Ahmed El‐Sohemy, Michael C. Archer

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition and Cancer · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjugated linoleic acidLinoleic acidCryptAberrant crypt fociBiologyBiochemistryEndocrinologyColonic diseaseColorectal cancerGeneticsCancerFatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is a potent inhibitor of the initiation and promotion of mammary carcinogenesis in animal models, but its role in colon carcinogenesis remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine whether CLA inhibits the promotion of colon carcinogenesis. Forty male Sprague-Dawley rats were given a single dose of azoxymethane (20 mg/kg body wt ip). After 1 wk, the animals were randomized into two groups (n = 20) and fed a control AIN-93G diet or the control diet supplemented with 1% CLA at the expense of the soybean oil. After 12 wk, the animals were killed, and their colons were stained with methylene blue for aberrant crypt foci (ACF) analysis by light microscopy. The total number of ACF per animal did not differ between the control (174 ±11) and CLA (170 ± 10) groups. Furthermore, CLA did not affect the average crypt multiplicity (crypts/ACF) or the average number of ACF in any size category. However, rats fed the 1% CLA diet had significantly higher serum insulin levels at the time of sacrifice than those fed the control diet. Thus it is possible that the promoting effects of elevated serum insulin on colon carcinogenesis may have counteracted an inhibitory effect of CLA.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition and CancerSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207