Lymphatic Function Is Impaired Following Irradiation of a Single Lymph Node
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lymph nodes are often the target of radiotherapy procedures. Unfortunately, the impact of nodal irradiation on lymphatic function is uncertain. In this study, our aim was to quantify the impact of lymph node irradiation on lymph flow. METHODS AND RESULTS: The popliteal node or the nodal excision site of rabbits was treated with four daily 8 Gy doses of radiation. A FITC-dextran tracer was infused into a prenodal popliteal lymphatic. The area under the tracer blood recovery curve (AUC) indicated lymphatic functionality and the inflow pressure versus flow rate relationship inferred resistance through the system. Fluoroscopic and histological examination provided supporting data. Radiation of intact nodes decreased lymph transport significantly at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months post-treatment (AUCs of 207.9 ± 79.87, 191.6 ± 62.95, and 250.44 ± 46.45) in comparison to controls (667.32 ± 104.18). Surprisingly, this functional decline was similar to that detected with a combination of node removal and irradiation of the excision site. The pressure-flow relationships in all treatment groups were significantly different from controls. This may be due in part to fibrosis and the thickening of the nodal capsules and trabeculae observed at 1 and 6 months. Fluoroscopy and Evans blue dye studies revealed vigorous new lymphatic vessel growth and occasionally, vessels anastomosed with local veins. CONCLUSIONS: Irradiation of the popliteal lymph node impaired lymph transport and increased the pressure required to maintain flow through the system. New vessel formation and the growth of lymph-venous anastomoses indicated the development of alternative drainage pathways as a compensatory response.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".