MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055973344 · doi:10.1159/000226900

The Response of Mouse Tumours to Fractionated Doses of Pions: Determination of Therapeutic Gain Factor

2009· article· en· W2055973344 on OpenAlexaff
Yasuhiro Ogawa, George Goodman, David J. Chaplin, William Grulkey, Gabriel K. Y. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcomaNuclear medicineRelative biological effectivenessPionIrradiationPathologyMedicinePhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the same experimental system which had been used to determine the pion relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for skin of mouse foot by Chaplin et al., we have determined the pion RBE for KHT sarcoma and SCCVII tumour transplanted in the foot of C3H mice. The pion RBE obtained by the tumour growth delay time method in comparison with 250 kVp X-rays at a dose rate of 150 cGy per min was determined to be 1.20, 1.28 and 1.50 with single, 4 and 10 fractions, respectively, for KHT sarcoma. As for SCCVII tumour, it was determined to be 1.17, 1.45 and 2.05 with single, 4 and 10 fractions respectively. Therefore, it has been concluded that pions have various values of RBE depending on the tumour system involved. KHT sarcoma is a tumour which grows very rapidly, on the contrary, SCCVII tumour shows somewhat slower growth characteristics. These differences of RBE between these two tumour systems possibly stem from differences in the amount of hypoxic cells and/or their rates of reoxygenation. As for therapeutic gain factor, a maximum value of 1.45 was obtained with 10 fractions using the SCCVII tumour. Pions seem to be most effective (in multiple fractions) against tumours of relatively slow growth.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207