In Vitro and In Vivo evaluation of montmorillonite for paraquat poisoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evaluation of montmorillonite for paraquat by in vitro and in vivo test. In vitro test were evaluated by a batch test, taking the paraquat concentration, adsorbents, reaction environment and time as indices, the absorption rate was screened by orthogonal design. In vivo test was executed with rabbits. Group 1: 4 rabbits dosed with montmorillonite. Group 2: 8 rabbits dosed with 200 mg/kg paraquat. Group 3: 6 rabbits dosed with 200 mg/kg paraquat then gavage with montmorillonite 5 min later. Group 4: 6 rabbits dosed with 200 mg/kg paraquat then gavage with montmorillonite 30 min later. Blood paraquat concentration, serum cytokines, blood gas analysis and histopathology of lung were implemented. In vitro test found that all the four factors influence the absorption rate of paraquat (P < 0.05). In vitro test found that oral montmorillonite could change toxicokinetics parameters of paraquat (P < 0.05); decrease raised serum TGF-β1 and HMGB1 (P < 0.05) and alleviate the histopathology damage of lung. Montmorillonite might exert its protective effects on paraquat induced damage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.004 |
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".