A comparison of Doxorubicin and Doxorubicinol concentrations in rat heart and liver tissue following anthracycline administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doxorubicin (DOX) is an anti‐cancer chemotherapeutic and although it is widely used, its accumulation over time in different tissues has not been thoroughly investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine the concentration of both DOX and its metabolite (Doxorubicinol, DOXol) in the heart and liver of male Sprague‐Dawley rats. Two doses (1.5 mg/kg and 4.5 mg/kg) were injected intraperitoneally and tissues were collected at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hrs post‐injection. In the heart, at all time points, DOX concentrations were higher (p<0.05) following the 4.5 vs 1.5 mg/kg injection (0.78±0.07 vs 1.81±0.26 nmol/g at 24 hrs, 0.37±0.06 nmol/g vs 0.96±0.06 nmol/g at 96 hrs). It was observed that DOX heart concentrations steadily decreased (p<0.05) over time for the 4.5 mg/kg dose, whereas for the 1.5 mg/kg dose, concentrations remained constant for the first 72 hrs and then decreased (p<0.05) at 96 hrs. In the liver, at all time points and for both doses, DOX concentrations were higher (p<0.05) as compared to the heart (3.85±1.1 and 5.29±0.87 nmol/g in the liver vs 0.78±0.07 and 1.81±0.26 nmol/g in the heart, at 24 hrs). While DOXol was detected in small concentrations in both heart and liver tissue, no accumulation was observed over the 96 hrs. These data suggest that in both heart and liver that DOX accumulates in a dose dependent fashion. In contrast, DOXol does not accumulate to any degree in either tissue, suggesting that it is rapidly degraded or eliminated from the tissues. Supported by NSERC.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".