MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029374754 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603508

Potentiation of photodynamic therapy of cancer by complement: the effect of γ-inulin

2006· article· en· W2029374754 on OpenAlexaff
Mladen Korbelik, Peter D. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsInulinPhotodynamic therapyComplement systemAdjuvantCancer researchMedicineImmunologyImmune systemChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host response elicited by photodynamic therapy (PDT) of cancerous lesions is a critical contributor to the clinical outcome, and complement system has emerged as its important element. Amplification of complement action was shown to improve tumour PDT response. In search of a clinically relevant complement activator for use as a PDT adjuvant, this study focused on gamma-inulin and examined its effects on PDT response of mouse tumours. Intralesional gamma-inulin (0.1 mg mouse(-1)) delivered immediately after PDT rivaled zymosan (potent classical complement activator) in delaying the recurrence of B16BL6 melanomas. This effect of gamma-inulin was further enhanced by IFN-gamma pretreatment. Tumour C3 protein levels, already elevated after individual PDT or gamma-inulin treatments, increased much higher after their combination. With fibrosarcomas MCA205 and FsaR, adjuvant gamma-inulin proved highly effective in reducing recurrence rates following PDT using four different photosensitisers (BPD, ce6, Photofrin, and mTHPC). At 3 days after PDT plus gamma-inulin treatment, over 50% of cells found at the tumour site were CTLs engaged in killing specific targets via perforin-granzyme pathway. This study demonstrates that gamma-inulin is highly effective PDT adjuvant and suggests that by amplifying the activation of complement system, this agent potentiates the development of CTL-mediated immunity against PDT-treated tumours.

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)0.001
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 score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations70
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207