MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075861929 · doi:10.1121/1.4783987

Volume measurements of the cell destruction zone and thermal decomposition zone in the focus of a shock wave transducer

2004· article· en· W2075861929 on OpenAlexaff
Igor V. Mastikhin, V. S. Teslenko, Valery P. Nikolin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectron Spin Resonance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)Shock waveThermal decompositionMaterials scienceChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of the volume of the cell destruction zone is of interest in biomedical applications of shock waves (SW). The volume depends on mechanical properties of the cell membranes and is different for different cell types. In this work, we evaluated the cell destruction volume for two different cell types, tumor cells Crebs-2 and red blood cells. We used 0 70 0.5-s SW pulses with 45-MPa pressure in the focal zone. The concentration of destroyed cells was counted by dyeing in the case of tumor cells, and by spectrometry of released hemoglobin in the case of RBC. The cell destruction volume was calculated from destruction versus pulse number data and measured as 0.0135 ml for tumor cells. For RBC, the volume was 0.021 ml. To evaluate the effective volume of thermal zone, we used EPR signal of stable disulphide biradicals. Under SW action, S–S bonds of the biradicals rupture. The volume measurements were 0.003 ml. Since for that biradical, S–S bonds rupture at temperatures >80°C, and concentration of free radicals was an order lower (measured by spin traps) than of the produced monoradical, the rupture was caused by thermal decomposition. Thermal effects can play a significant role in SW action.

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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicElectron Spin Resonance StudiesFrench-language works237,207