A comparison of cyclosporine A and cyclosporine \nG in a rabbit heterotopic cardiac transplant model: \ngraft outcome and histological findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical heterotopic heart transplants \nwere performed on 20 male New Zealand white \nrabbits comprising 4 treatment groups. Animals in each \ngroup were injected daily via the marginal ear vein \nand received one of the following regimes: Cyclosporine \nA, 10 mglkglday; Cyclosporine G, 15 mglkglday; \ncremophor-El, 3mllday; or normal saline. Measurement \nof 24 hour trough blood concentrations revealed \nno significant differences between the average \nconcentrations of Cyclosporine A and Cyclosporine \nG. Animals were examined daily and the cervical \nallografts assessed by palpation for viabilitylrejection. \nThe duration of the study ended for each animal \nwhen the graft stopped beating at which time the animals \nwas euthanized and the transplanted heart and \nnative kidneys harvested and processed for light \nmicroscopy evaluation of rejection and drug toxicity, \nrespectively. \nGraft survival in the Cyclosporine A group \nsignificantly surpassed that seen in the Cyclosporine G \ngroup as well as the control groups, whereas in animals \ntreated with Cyclosporine G, graft survival was not \ndifferent from controls. In the native kidney, there were \nno differences in glomerular tuft area or volume density \namongst drug-treated or control animals. In contrast, \ntubule atrophy and interstitial fibrosis were markedly \ngreater in Cyclosporine A-treated vs Cyclosporine Gtreated \nanimals. \nThe results of this study indicate that, whereas \nCyclosporine G is less nephrotoxic than Cyclosporine A, \ngiven equivalent blood concentrations Cyclosporine A \ndelays rejection of a cardiac allograft significantly \nlonger than Cyclosporine G in this animal species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".