Sensitization to Radiation from an Implanted<sup>125</sup>I Source by Sustained Intratumoral Release of Chemotherapeutic Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have investigated tumor response to low-dose-rate irradiation from an implanted 125I source alone or in conjunction with intratumoral drug administration. The drug (cis-DDP or 5-FU) was incorporated homogeneously into the co-polymer CPP-SA, 20:80, and the polymer/drug rods were implanted in the RIF-1 fibrosarcomas growing subcutaneously in C3H mice. Twenty-four hours later, the tumor was implanted with an 125I seed. Tumor growth time was the end point in these experiments. For implanted 125I sources of different dose rates and implant times giving a range of total doses, a consistent dose-response relationship was shown between tumor growth time and total dose. In other experiments, 125I sources of different specific activities were implanted for periods of time adjusted so that the total dose to the tumor was always the same. When the 125I implant was combined with 5-FU, greater than additive responses were seen for both short (30 h) and long (96 h) 125I treatment times. In contrast, a short-duration (30 h) 125I implant combined with cis-DDP was the least effective treatment, giving a combined response that was no better than additive, whereas 96 h exposure to 125I combined with cis-DDP was the most effective combined treatment. It is conjectured that this inverse dose-rate effect seen when cis-DDP is combined with low-dose rate radiation is related to a cell cycle effect and/or to inhibition of repair of radiation damage by cis-DDP.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".