MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984982601 · doi:10.1179/joc.2007.19.5.546

Comparative Cytotoxicity of C-1311 in Colon Cancer<i>In Vitro</i>and<i>In Vivo</i>Using the Hollow Fiber Assay

2007· article· en· W1984982601 on OpenAlexaff
N. Alami, Jesse Paterson, Simon Bélanger, Sandy Juste, Charles K. Grieshaber, B Leyland-Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemotherapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxaliplatinCapecitabinePaclitaxelCytotoxicityGrowth inhibitionColorectal cancerIn vivoCell growthChemotherapyPharmacologyBiologyMTT assayPhases of clinical researchIn vitroCancer researchInternal medicineCancerMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the antiproliferative effects of C-1311 (Symadex), a member of the imidazoacridinone family, in human colorectal cancer cells. In the in vitro screen, C-1311 led to the most prominent growth inhibition in HT29, HCT116, and COLO205 cell lines when compared to oxaliplatin, CPT-11, DFUR, 5-FU and capecitabine. The GI(50)values for C-1311 ranged from 0.12 to 0.83 microM and the TGI concentrations (resulting in total growth inhibition) were 6- to 13-fold lower than those of other agents. In the hollow fiber assay in vivo, C-1311 caused 77% growth inhibition of HT29 in the intraperitoneal site as compared to paclitaxel (17% growth inhibition). In the subcutaneous site, C-1311 produced 57% growth inhibition while paclitaxel showed no cell growth inhibition effects. This unique cytotoxicity profile of C-1311 warrants further investigation and supports its clinical development in colon cancer patients. Symadex (C-1311) is currently in phase 2 clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ChemotherapySame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207