MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411618054 · doi:10.51847/yfk9ig5hx9

10.51847/yfK9ig5hx9

2000· article· en· W4411618054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaloperidolDrugMedicinePhysiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is to evaluate the effect of Haloperidol drug in changes of tests tissue and spermatogenesis process.40 pregnant female rat of vistar race were studied empirically in 5 groups with 8 members and 8 male infants out of each group were tested randomly.There was not medicine care on control group.Control group recived 1 cc distilled water as drug's solvent.Empirical group received Haloperidol drug 12/5, 25, 50 mg/kg every day for 28 days orally.Hemat imeteric was performed when time period was over and after drug prescription.Hematosmples were gathered in order to measure serum concentration of hormones: LH, FSH and testosterone by radio immunocy method.According to results, 25, 50 mg/kg Haloperidol consumption has led to lose weight and testosterone reduction while, has increased LH, FSH concentration.To evaluate on testis tissue showed some obvious reduction in cell sequence of spermatogenesis by dose of 25, 50 mg/kg.weight-average of testes had not meaningful difference between control group and empirical group who had received drug.Eating 50 mg/kg Haloperidol reduced erume concentration of testosterone hormone and attenuate production process of spermatogenesis cells, whereas it increases serum concentration of LH, FSH hormones and this show remedy activity by hippofiz to exudte gonadoteropins.Hence, if this drug is used in long time, generation efficiency will bedecreased.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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)0.9620.849

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207