Tolerability of Two Sequential Electroporation Treatments Using MedPulser DNA Delivery System (DDS) in Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunotherapy against infectious agents and malignant tumors requires efficient priming of effector cells through direct expression and/or efficient cross-presentation of antigens by antigen-presenting cells. Electroporation is a new procedure aimed at transiently increasing cell membrane permeability and direct delivery of antigen or antigen-encoding nucleic acids inside targeted cells. We evaluated the tolerability including compliance with repeated electroporation treatments using MedPulser DDS in 24 healthy adults. Pain severity was evaluated at time of electroporation treatment, and at 1, 5, 10, and 20 minutes, and 24 hours thereafter, using two clinically validated questionnaires: McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) (Present Pain Intensity) and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Electroporation treatments were generally well tolerated. Twenty-two out of 24 subjects returned for the second electroporation treatment 14 days after first treatment. Only two subjects reported a treatment-related systemic adverse experience following either electroporation application. For both pain assessment tools, maximum pain and/or discomfort were mostly reported immediately (within 5 minutes) after electroporation; Furthermore, no difference was observed when comparing peak-pain scores after first and second electroporation treatments. This study supports the clinical application of MedPulser DDS for the improvement of antigen-induced immune responses for prophylactic or therapeutic vaccines, especially in gene-based therapies for cancer.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".