MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001851003 · doi:10.1177/153303460300200602

Optical Systems for <i>in Vivo</i> Molecular Imaging of Cancer

2003· review· en· W2001851003 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology in Cancer Research & Treatment · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular imagingIn vivoCancerProteasesEpidermal growth factor receptorOptical imagingPreclinical imagingComputational biologyCancer researchPathologyBiologyMedicineOpticsGeneticsPhysicsEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress toward a molecular characterization of cancer would have important clinical benefits; thus, there is an important need to image the molecular features of cancer in vivo. In this paper, we describe a comprehensive strategy to develop inexpensive, rugged and portable optical imaging systems for molecular imaging of cancer, which couples the development of optically active contrast agents with advances in functional genomics of cancer. We describe initial results obtained using optically active contrast agents to image the expression of three well known molecular signatures of neoplasia: including over expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), matrix metallo-proteases (MMPs), and oncoproteins associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. At the same time, we are developing inexpensive, portable optical systems to image the morphologic and molecular signatures of neoplasia noninvasively in real time. These real-time, portable, inexpensive systems can provide tools to characterize the molecular features of cancer in vivo.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.350 · 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