Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brandes et al. (1) published a report in the Journal in which they claimed that Hrantihistamines, such as lorata-dine, astemizole, and hydroxyzine, en-hanced murine tumor growth. As a formal opinion regarding this issue, Health Canada1 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2 declared the necessity of confirmation of the results of Brandes et al. (1). As a result, we reassessed the effects of astemizole on the cell proliferation of murine tumors (B16F10 melanoma cells) to confirm the reproducibility of their results. How-ever, we were not able to reproduce them (2). As a final approach, we assessed the ef-fects of astemizole on the proliferation of two human-derived tumor cells, HMV-1 melanoma (3-5) and HT1080 fibrosar-coma (6), both in vitro and in vivo. In the in vitro studies, the number of colonies (>1 mm diameter) and bromo-deoxyuridine (BrdU) uptake (7,8) were measured after a 24-hour treatment with astemizole (10~l2-l(T5 M). For in vivo studies, 7-week-old female CB-17 scid/ scid (SCID) mice (9,70) under anes-thesia were given subcutaneous inocula-tions of cells from each solid tumor (2 x 2 x 2 mm). Tumor-bearing mice (each tumor approximately 100 mm3) were randomly assigned to each of four groups and then treated orally with as-temizole (6.0, 20.0, or 60.0 mg/m2 per day) or the vehicle control for 10 days. On the day after the final dosing, the tumors were excised and weighed. In in vitro studies, the number of colonies and the amount of BrdU uptake in astemizole-treated groups were not significantly different from those in the control group. Also, in in vivo studies, astemizole did not promote the cell growth of human HMV-1 melanoma or HT1080fibrosarcoma (Fig.l). Thus, both our earlier results on B16F10 melanoma conducted in vitro
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.427 | 0.246 |
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".