Photodynamic actinometry using microencapsulates: concepts and developmental approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the development of novel, fluorescent-based actinometer encapsulates as a means of discerning volumetric Photodynamic therapy (PDT) dosimetry relative to the incident light and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. PDT relies on three main ingredients; oxygen, light and photo-activatable commpounds, although, the PDT response is definately contingent on the site and level of ROS generation. Providing a localized, in situ measurement of luminance and ROS generation is therefore critical when deciphering targetd photodynamci therapy (PDT) protocols in vivo. Toward this end, alginate-poly-L-lysine-alginate encapsulates were made using ionotropic gelation of sodium alginate droplets ranging from 75 to 200 μm in diameter. Two candidate dyes, ADS680WS (ADS) and R-phycoerythrin (RPE) were chosen based on photochemistry, chemical stabilty and sensitivity to changing pH and oxygen environments. Alginate beads were constructed with ADS conjugated to the inside and RPE attached to the outside layer. The production of ROS was initiated either chemically using increasing concentrations of potassium perchromate or photochemically using tetra-sulphonated aluminium phosphorescence (AlPcS4). The generation of singlet oxygen was confirmed by the presence of a phosphorescence peak at 1270 nm. The resulting photodegradation and subsequent decrease in fluorescence of RPE was found to correlate very closely (p<0.001) with increasing perchromate or fluence respectively. This effect was independent of pH (6.5-8) and could be inhibited using sodium azide. RPA was not susceptible to photobleaching with light alone (675 nm; 150 J/cm2). Meanwhile, ADS680WS, which absorbs light at 670-690 nm, showed a direct correlation between diminished fluorescence (photobleaching) and incident fluence (675 nm; 0-100 J/cm2). This effect was independent of fluence rate (10-40 mW/cm2). We propose that actinometer encapsulates may prove useful for implanting into potential target areas such as the brain in order to determine the delivered dose of PDT at specific sites within that target area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".