Intraperitoneal distribution of alginate microcapsules in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Improved drug delivery mechanisms for the treatment of residual peritoneal cancer cells following cytoreduction surgery are needed. Alginate microcapsules are a potentially useful mechanism for delivery of bioengineered cells, but when injected into the peritoneum, their distribution and properties are not well described. Methods: Aliquots of 300, 600 or 1200 microcapsules were injected into the peritoneum of 81 mice. Mice were sacrificed at 6, 12, 18, and 48 days and laparotomy was performed to quantify the distribution of microspheres. Results: The injections were well tolerated for up to 48 days. No peritoneal adherence or inflammatory reaction was noted to the microcapsules. Injection of 1200 microcapsules resulted in a better overall persistence and widespread peritoneal distribution at up to 48 days. The volume of fluid used for injection of the microcapsules did not affect their distribution or persistence. Conclusion: The intraperitoneal injection of alginate microspheres allows wide and persistent distribution throughout the abdominal cavity. The next step is to test the distribution of microcapsules when delivered following surgery in a rodent model.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".