MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052626302 · doi:10.1007/s10227-004-0117-5

Multiple Large-Surface Photodynamic Therapy Sessions with Topical or Systemic Aminolevulinic Acid and Blue Light in UV-Exposed Hairless Mice

2004· article· en· W2052626302 on OpenAlexaff
Younan Liu, Gilles Viau, Robert Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHairlessPhotodynamic therapyMedicineActinic keratosesSkin cancerDermatologyPhotosensitivityBasal cellActinic keratosisBlue lightCancer researchCancerPathologyInternal medicineChemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with topical aminolevulinic acid (ALA) on large skin surfaces has recently been reported for patients with multiple actinic keratoses. OBJECTIVE: The current study compared the ability of topical and systemic ALA-PDT as well as topical ALA-PDT with blue light to delay the appearance of UV-induced skin cancer using the hairless mouse as a model. METHODS: Groups of hairless mice were exposed daily to UV radiation and weekly to ALA-PDT. Tumor-free survival was compared for mice exposed to UV and treated weekly with ALA-PDT and mice exposed only to UV radiation. RESULTS: Weekly topical or systemic ALA-PDT was able to delay the induction of skin tumors. A significant difference in tumor-free survival was also observed for both actinic keratoses and invasive squamous cell carcinoma in mice treated weekly with topical ALA-PDT performed with blue light. This was observed even when weekly ALA-PDT was started after 8 weeks of UV exposure. CONCLUSION: Large-surface topical ALA-PDT with blue light can delay the appearance of UV-induced actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinoma in hairless mice.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207