MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090589988 · doi:10.1080/09553000500141447

Evaluation of cisplatin treatment given concurrently with pulsed irradiation in cisplatin sensitive and resistant human ovarian carcinoma cell lines

2005· article· en· W2090589988 on OpenAlexaff
Julie-Maude LeBlanc, G. P. Raaphorst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCisplatinOvarian carcinomaIrradiationCancer researchOvarian cancerCell cultureOncologyInternal medicineMedicineChemotherapyBiologyCancerGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim was to investigate the effect of combined treatment of cisplatin with acute or pulsed radiation in human ovarian carcinoma cells sensitive and resistant to cisplatin. Human ovarian cancer cell parental line A2780s and a derivative cisplatin-resistant line A2780cp were given cisplatin treatment before a single acute dose irradiation or concurrently during a pulsed-dose irradiation sequence. Cells were irradiated in the confluent state, trypsinized and plated after treatment. When the combined treatment for cisplatin was given before acute irradiation, the results showed additive to superadditive effects for both cell lines. However, the superadditivity was only significant in the sensitive cell line. For the concomitant treatment of cisplatin during pulsed-dose irradiation the results were additive, except for the highest cisplatin dose in the A2780cp line where subadditivity was observed. The results indicate that the combined treatments could be clinically useful even though the results are mostly not superadditive. However, high-dose cisplatin (3 microg ml(-1)) caused a subadditive effect in the resistant cell lines for pulsed irradiation. Thus, high-dose cisplatin to overcome resistance is not effective. Cisplatin with both acute and pulsed irradiation showed additive effects indicating no advantage of using cisplatin in pulsed irradiation where sublethal damage repair may be greater.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation BiologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207