MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285121612 · doi:10.1177/23978473221108881

Preclinical safety assessments of nicotinamide riboside hydrogen malate

2022· article· en· W4285121612 on OpenAlexaff
Margitta Dziwenka, Amy Mozingo

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicology Research and Application · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotinamideNiacinamidePharmacologyNiacinGenotoxicityChemistryAmes testAdverse effectMicronucleus testMedicineBiochemistryToxicityBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nicotinamide riboside (NR) is an analog of vitamin B3, which is naturally present in trace amounts in selected foods. Several B3 analogs are known precursors in the synthesis of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, including nicotinic acid (niacin) and nicotinamide (niacinamide). The safety of nicotinamide riboside hydrogen malate (NRHM), a salt of NR, was assessed in a bacterial reverse mutagenesis assay (Ames), in vitro micronucleus assay in human peripheral lymphocytes, a 14-day acute toxicology test (Sprague-Dawley rats), and a 90-day sub-chronic toxicology study in Sprague-Dawley rats. Based on the results of the 14-day study, the 90-day sub-chronic study was conducted comparing oral NRHM at 1000, 1500, and 3000 mg/kg/day with a vehicle control. No genotoxicity was observed. There were no mortalities or clinical observations attributed to the NRHM test substance administration over the course of the study. The no-observed-adverse effect level for NRHM was determined to be 3000 mg/kg bw/day in the female rats but 2000 mg/kg bw/day in the male rats due to a significantly lower body weight in males at the high dose. The results of this study imply that NRHM can be manufactured at a high level of purity, is not genotoxic, and is well-tolerated in in Sprague-Dawley rats.

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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicology Research and ApplicationSame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207