Effects of Social Housing Condition on Chemotherapeutic Efficacy in a Shionogi Carcinoma (SC115) Mouse Tumor Model: Influences of Temporal Factors, Tumor Size, and Tumor Growth Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate 1) whether social housing condition, tumor size, and tumor growth rate alter responses to chemotherapy and 2) whether the timing of tumor cell injection or chemotherapy initiation (relative to housing condition formation) influences tumor growth rate or the efficacy of chemotherapy. METHODS: Mice were reared individually (I) or in groups (G). In experiment 1, mice were rehoused (IG or GI) or left in group housing (GG) immediately after tumor cell injection. In experiment 2, housing conditions (II, IG, GG, or GI) were formed when tumors weighed 1 g. Chemotherapy (adriamycin 4 mg/kg and cyclophosphamide 61.5 mg/kg IP) and exposure to acute novelty stress (15 min/d, 5 d/wk) were initiated 1 day after housing condition formation. RESULTS: If chemotherapy was initiated when the tumor burden was undetectable (experiment 1), housing condition did not alter tumor response to chemotherapy, although IG mice lost the most weight and overall had the lowest probability of survival. If chemotherapy was initiated when tumors weighed 1 g (experiment 2), both tumor and host responses to chemotherapy were poorest for IG mice. Timing of tumor cell injection relative to housing condition formation also differentially influenced the rate of tumor growth in mice treated with the drug vehicle; in experiment 1, tumor growth rate was faster in GI and GG mice than in IG mice, whereas in experiment 2, the rate of tumor growth was faster in II mice than in GG and IG mice. CONCLUSIONS: Altering the temporal relationships among social housing condition formation, tumor cell injection, and chemotherapy initiation differentially influences the rate of tumor growth and the efficacy of chemotherapy. Effects of housing condition are independent of tumor growth rate at chemotherapy initiation and, in terms of host responses, independent of tumor burden.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".