MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Sn(IV) Chlorin e6 on HepG2 Cancer Cell Lines

2010· article· en· W1670645935 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khaled A. Al-Khaza’ leh, Khalid Omar, Mastura Jaafar

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhototoxicityViability assayPhotosensitizerPhotodynamic therapyChemistryChlorinToxicityPhotosensitivityCancer cellBiophysicsNuclear chemistryIn vitroPhotochemistryBiochemistryCancerBiologyMaterials scienceMedicineInternal medicineOrganic chemistryOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigated the effect of Sn(IV) chlorin e6 dichloride trisodium salt photosensitizer on the viability of HepG2 cancer cell lines in vitro. The effect of light on the viability of cells without the photosensitiser and the toxicity of the photosensitiser in the absence of light were examined in this research. No toxic effects with the absence of light were found and no photodamge effect on the cells without the presence of photosensitiser. The effect of different concentrations of the photosensitiser with fixed light dose of 70 J/cm2 on the viability of HepG2 cancer cells were performed. Then, two concentrations 25 and 30 μg/ml were investigated at different light doses 60-100 J/cm2. The effect of the photosensitiser on the viability of HepG2 at different light doses and different concentrations was found to have low viability over concentrations of 25 μg/ml. This could be due to that the photosensitiser reached a saturated status after this concentration. Key words: PDT; Sn(IV) chlorin e6; liver cancer; phototoxicity; viability assay

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciencesSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207