MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011383446 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/11/011

Characterization of Photofrin photobleaching for singlet oxygen dose estimation during photodynamic therapy of MLL cells<i>in vitro</i>

2005· article· en· W2011383446 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan S. Dysart, Michael S. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsSinglet oxygenPhotobleachingPhotodynamic therapyPhotosensitizerPhotochemistryKineticsOxygenChemistryFluorescenceRose bengalReactive oxygen speciesFluenceBiophysicsMaterials scienceOpticsBiologyBiochemistryOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A singlet oxygen dose model is developed for PDT with Photofrin. The model is based on photosensitizer photobleaching kinetics, and incorporates both singlet oxygen and non-singlet oxygen mediated bleaching mechanisms. To test our model, in vitro experiments were performed in which MatLyLu (MLL) cells were incubated in Photofrin and then irradiated with 532 nm light. Photofrin fluorescence was monitored during treatment and, at selected fluence levels, cell viability was determined using a colony formation assay. Cell survival correlated well to calculated singlet oxygen dose, independent of initial Photofrin concentration or oxygenation. About 2 x 10(8) molecules of singlet oxygen per cell were required to reduce the surviving fraction by 1/e. Analysis of the photobleaching kinetics suggests that the lifetime of singlet oxygen in cells is 0.048 +/- 0.005 micros. The generation of fluorescent photoproducts was not a result of singlet oxygen reactions exclusively, and therefore did not yield additional information to aid in quantifying singlet oxygen dose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 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

Citations220
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207