Handling of the Cotton Rat in Studies for the Pre-clinical Evaluation of Oncolytic Viruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oncolytic viruses are a novel anticancer therapy with the ability to target tumor cells, while leaving healthy cells intact. For this strategy to be successful, recent studies have shown that involvement of the host immune system is essential. Therefore, oncolytic virotherapy should be evaluated within the context of an immunocompetent model. Furthermore, the study of antitumor therapies in tolerized animal models may better recapitulate results seen in clinical trials. Cotton rats, commonly used to study respiratory viruses, are an attractive model to study oncolytic virotherapy as syngeneic models of mammary carcinoma and osteosarcoma are well established. However, there is a lack of published information on the proper handling procedure for these highly excitable rodents. The handling and capture approach outlined minimizes animal stress to facilitate experimentation. This technique hinges upon the ability of the researcher to keep calm during handling and perform procedures in a timely fashion. Finally, we describe how to prepare cotton rat mammary tumor cells for consistent subcutaneous tumor formation, and how to perform intratumoral and intraperitoneal injections. These methods can be applied to a wide range of studies furthering the development of the cotton rat as a relevant pre-clinical model to study antitumor therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".