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 OpenAlexaff
Konstantin Sokolov, Jesse Aaron, Betsy Hsu, Dawn Nida, Ann M. Gillenwater, Michele Follen, Calum MacAulay, Karen Adler‐Storthz, Brian A. Korgel, Michael R. Descour, Renata Pasqualini, Wadih Arap, Wan L. Lam, Rebecca Richards‐Kortum

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations204
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology in Cancer Research & TreatmentSame topicNanoplatforms for cancer theranosticsFrench-language works237,207