TH‐C‐204B‐03: Monitoring the Response to Photodyamic Therapy in Murine Tumours with Contrast‐Enhanced Micro‐CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : To identify if contrast‐enhanced micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) can be used as a non‐invasive imaging device to detect the vascular response of murine tumours following photodynamic therapy (PDT). Method and Materials : A solution of RIF‐1 cells (10 5 ) was injected subcutaneously in the posterior flank of C3H mice 3 weeks prior to the treatment. Two groups of treated mice and two control groups were used (n=5 per group). The two PDT‐groups were treated with fluences of 150 J/cm 2 and 50 J/cm 2 . The photosensitizer dose was kept constant in both groups. One control group was exposed to light only (no photosensitizer was administered) while the other did not receive any type of treatment. The imaging procedure consisted of 10 eight‐second scans: 2 pre‐PDT (before and after contrast agent administration) and 8 post‐PDT (at various time‐points up to 24 hours). The tumours removed after the last scan were prepared for histology. The PDT response was quantified by finding the ratio of blood‐to‐tumour volume from the micro‐CT images. The ratios were compared at each time‐point among the four groups in order to identify the group and time‐point showing the strongest PDT response detectable with micro‐CT. Results : A significant vascular response was detected at 8 and 24 hours after treatment when using a light fluence of 150 J/cm 2 (p < 0.01). Hematoxylin and eosin staining confirmed the treatment effects at the cellular level. Conclusion : Our results indicate that contrast‐enhanced micro‐CT can be used as a non‐invasive imaging tool to detect the vascular response of tumours following PDT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".