Evaluation of differential white blood cell count and cheek pouch epithelium in 7,12-dimethylbenza[a]anthracene hamster carcinogenesis model, managed with three phytochemicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives:Nigella sativa (NS), thymoquinone (TQ), and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) are phytochemicals that might have antioxidant protective potentials on the hamster cheek pouch epithelium (HCPE). We aimed at evaluating and comparing the potential therapeutic outcomes of these 3 phytochemicals by analysis of peripheral white blood cells (WBCs) counts.Materials and Methods:NS whole oil, TQ and EGCG were administered before, with or after 7,12-dimethylbenza[a]anthracene (DMBA) painting the hamster left cheek pouch. Before sacrificing each animal, 2 ml of blood was withdrawn into a fine heparin-containing tube to estimate the total WBCs, lymphocytes, MID cells, and granulocytes counts by an automatic count system. All cheek pouches were surgically excised and examined with light microscope.Results:Severe epithelial dysplasia was evident after 6 weeks of DMBA administration, and when NS was given for 2 weeks followed by DMBA for 6 weeks. When NS or EGCG were given for 2 weeks then continued with DMBA for 6 weeks, mild dysplasia was seen. When DMBA was given for 6 weeks followed by NS or TQ for 6 weeks, mild dysplasia was noted. Administration of DMBA for 6 weeks resulted in significant reduction in total WBCs and lymphocytes counts compared to healthy controls. Administration of NS or TQ for 2 weeks resulted in significant elevation in lymphocytes count compared to healthy controls. Significant elevation in total WBCS and lymphocytes counts was noted when EGCG was given for 2 weeks and continued with DMBA for other 6 weeks. Similar results were noted when DMBA was given for 6 weeks followed by TQ for 6 weeks when compared to NS, DMBA or healthy controls.Discussion:The three phytochemicals showed different levels of protection against DMBA carcinogenic activity, more specifically, TQ and NS had higher therapeutic potential and might be used for treatment and/or preventive management of oral cancer in the future.Conclusion:However, further investigations are required to address the mechanism of action and feasibility of clinical application of each phytochemical.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".