MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401538796 · doi:10.53902/sioaj.2024.02.000507

Efficacy of Alanyl-Glutamine in Preventing Mesh-Induced Adhesions: A Rat Model Study

2024· article· en· W4401538796 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Adebola Obayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal University Hospital Foundation
KeywordsProleneMedicineGlutamineLaparotomyAdhesionSurgeryRandomized controlled trialChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of alanyl-glutamine in preventing intraperitoneal adhesions in the presence of Marlex and Prolene meshes in a rat model. Design: This experimental study utilized a randomized controlled trial design. Setting: The study was conducted at University of Saskatchewan, involving a laboratory animal facility. Interventions: Twenty-four Wistar rats weighing over 300g were randomly assigned to three groups: Group 1 underwent laparotomy with cecal ligation and puncture and received Marlex or Prolene mesh, Group 2 underwent the same procedure with mesh plus alanyl-glutamine treatment, and Group 3 served as controls with laparotomy only. Adhesion formation was evaluated using histological staining techniques. Results: Rats treated with alanyl-glutamine showed significantly fewer adhesions compared to those without treatment, as evidenced by lower Zuhlke adhesion scores and histological analysis. Adhesions were absent at the six-week follow-up in the treatment group. Conclusion: Alanyl-glutamine effectively reduced adhesion formation in the presence of Marlex and Prolene meshes in this experimental rat model. These findings suggest a potential clinical application of alanyl-glutamine in enhancing surgical outcomes by mitigating postoperative adhesions associated with mesh placement.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207