Protective effects of diclofenac on liver graft preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the effect of diclofenac addition to the preservation solution Celsior on liver graft preservation. Liver from Wistar rats were cold flushed in situ, harvested, and then stored in Celsior solution (24 h, 4 °C) supplemented or not with 50 mg/L of diclofenac sodium salt. Reperfusion was performed (120 min, 37 °C) using the isolated perfusion rat liver model. Perfusate samples were collected to evaluate transaminases' activities after cold storage and by the end of reperfusion. To evaluate liver function, bile flow, hepatic clearance of bromosulfophthalein, and vascular resistance were assessed. Diclofenac scavenging property (DPPH assay) as well as oxidative stress parameters (SOD and MPO activities and the concentration of glutathione, conjugated dienes, MDA, and carbonylated proteins) were measured. Transcription factors (PPAR-γ and NF-κB), inflammation (COX-2, IL-6, HMGB-1, and TLR-4), as well as apoptosis markers (Bcl-2 and Bax) were determined by quantitative RT-PCR. Enriching the preservation solution Celsior with diclofenac sodium salt attenuated liver injuries and improved graft function. Oxidative stress, inflammation, and apoptosis were significantly reduced in Celsior + Diclo solution. Also, diclofenac activated PPAR-γ and inhibited NF-κB transcription factors. To decrease graft damage and improve transplant recovery, diclofenac sodium salt may be a promising additive to preservation solution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".