MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083347269 · doi:10.1562/2005-09-09-ra-681

Role of Complement Anaphylatoxin C3a in Photodynamic Therapy‐elicited Engagement of Host Neutrophils and Other Immune Cells

2005· article· en· W2083347269 on OpenAlexaff
Ivana Cecić, Jinghai Sun, Mladen Korbelik

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemistry and Photobiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutrophiliaAnaphylatoxinImmunologyImmune systemComplement systemEffectorBiologyChemotaxisInflammationReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumor treatment by photodynamic therapy (PDT) provokes a host-protective inflammatory and acute-phase response and an immune reaction. Neutrophilia manifested in this context is driven by multiple mediators of neutrophil chemotaxis orchestrated by an activated complement system. Mouse FsaR fibrosarcoma was used in this study to further investigate neutrophilia induced by Photofrin-based PDT. The complement anaphylatoxin C3a was identified as a major chemoattractant in the advanced phase of PDT-induced neutrophilia, because injecting mice with antibodies blocking its receptor C3aR significantly inhibited the increase in neutrophil levels 8 h after PDT. At the same time point, an increased C3aR expression was detected in neutrophils, monocytes and B lymphocytes in the blood of host mice. Peritoneal macrophages and mast cells harvested from treatment-naive mice exhibited elevated C3aR expression after coincubation in vitro for 8 h with PDT-treated FsaR cells. Thus, C3a emerges as one of the key effector molecules engaged in PDT-induced host response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemistry and PhotobiologySame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207