MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010261903 · doi:10.1159/000226516

Factors Influencing the Toxicity of Diethylaminoethylreserpine to Tumor Cells: Studies with Four Transplantable Tumors

2009· article· en· W2010261903 on OpenAlexaff
Shirley Lehnert

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibrosarcomaIn vivoToxicityIn vitroLewis lung carcinomaCancer researchPharmacologyBiologyPathologyChemistryMedicineMetastasisCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The toxicity of 1-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl]reserpine (DL-152) has been measured for 4 transplantable mouse tumors. DL-152 was found to be toxic to cells of all the tumor models tested (KHT fibrosarcoma, RIF-1 fibrosarcoma, EMT-6 adenocarcinoma and Lewis lung carcinoma) when the drug was given by intraperitoneal injection to the tumor-bearing mouse and cell survival was measured by excision assay. For the KHT tumor, hypoxic cells were found to be more sensitive to the drug in vivo than were aerated cells, and a similar response to hypoxia was observed in vitro, suggesting that sensitization occurred at the cellular level. Neither EMT-6 nor RIF-1 tumors showed increased sensitivity to the drug when cells were exposed under hypoxic conditions in vivo or in vitro. However, when the response of aerated cells of the 3 tumors was compared, the relative sensitivities for tumors exposed in vivo did not show the same ranking as the results of in vitro toxicity assays. This difference in in vitro and in vivo response in the different tumor models did not appear to be related to pharmacokinetic factors since the maximum tissue concentration and the rate of clearance of the drug were similar for all the tumors studied.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncologySame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207