MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6957740281 · doi:10.60692/frs0w-0yd64

In Vitro and In Vivo evaluation of montmorillonite for paraquat poisoning

2023· article· en· W6957740281 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParaquat toxicity studies and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParaquatIn vivoIn vitroMontmorilloniteAbsorption (acoustics)Histopathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.225 · 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