Time-Resolved Fluorescence in Photodynamic Therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been used clinically for treating various diseases including malignant tumors. The main advantages of PDT over traditional cancer treatments are attributed to the localized effects of the photochemical reactions by selective illumination, which then generate reactive oxygen species and singlet oxygen molecules that lead to cell death. To date, over- or under-treatment still remains one of the major challenges in PDT due to the lack of robust real-time dose monitoring techniques. Time-resolved fluorescence (TRF) provides fluorescence lifetime profiles of the targeted fluorophores. It has been demonstrated that TRF offers supplementary information in drug-molecular interactions and cell responses compared to steady-state intensity acquisition. Moreover, fluorescence lifetime itself is independent of the light path; thus it overcomes the artifacts given by diffused light propagation and detection geometries. TRF in PDT is an emerging approach, and relevant studies to date are scattered. Therefore, this review mainly focuses on summarizing up-to-date TRF studies in PDT, and the effects of PDT dosimetric factors on the measured TRF parameters. From there, potential gaps for clinical translation are also discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it