MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972955629 · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2014.14

Impact of Drug Size on Brain Tumor and Brain Parenchyma Delivery after a Blood–Brain Barrier Disruption

2014· article· en· W1972955629 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Blanchette, Luc Tremblay, Martin Lepage, David Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood–brain barrierParenchymaBrain tumorDrug delivery to the brainDrug deliveryMedicineDrugBrain cancerNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemPharmacologyPathologyPsychologyInternal medicineChemistryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drug delivery to the brain is influenced by the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and blood-tumor barrier (BTB) to an extent that is still debated in neuro-oncology. In this paper, we studied the delivery across the BTB and the BBB of compounds with different molecular sizes in normal and glioma-bearing rats. Studies were performed at baseline as well as after an osmotic BBB disruption (BBBD) using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and two T₁ contrast agents (CAs), Magnevist (743 Da) and Gadomer (17,000 Da). More specifically, we determined the time window for the BBB permeability, the distribution and we calculated the brain exposure to the CAs. A different pattern of accumulation and distribution at baseline as well as after a BBBD procedure was observed for both agents, which is consistent with their different molecular size and weight. Baseline tumor exposure was threefold higher for Magnevist compared with Gadomer, whereas postBBBD tumor exposure was twofold higher for Magnevist. Our study clearly showed that the time window and the extent of delivery across the intact, as well as permeabilized BTB and BBB are influenced by drug size.

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 score0.003

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & MetabolismSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207