Adverse effect of mild temperature hyperthermia combined with hexamethylenetetramine compared to its effect combined with tirapazamine in the treatment of solid tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the effect on solid tumors of mild temperature hyperthermia (MTH) combined with hexamethylenetetramine (HMTA) or tirapazamine (TPZ). Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC VII) tumor-bearing mice were continuously administered 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) to label intratumor proliferating (P) cells. Mice received HMTA or TPZ through intraperitoneal single or subcutaneous continuous administration, with or without MTH (40°C, 60 min), followed or not by γ-ray irradiation or cisplatin treatment. After HMTA or TPZ administration without γ-ray irradiation or cisplatin treatment, immediately after γ-ray irradiation, or 1 h after cisplatin treatment, the response of quiescent (Q) cells was assessed in terms of micronucleus frequency using immunofluorescence staining for BrdU. The response of the total (P + Q) tumor cells was determined based on a comparison with non-BrdU-treated tumors. Without MTH, HMTA and TPZ had a nearly equal radiosensitizing and cisplatin sensitivity-enhancing effect on both total and Q cells. With MTH, radio- and cisplatin-sensitizing effects by HMTA were reduced, particularly in the Q cells. In contrast, the enhancing effects of TPZ were increased, particularly in the Q cells. Continuous administration of HMTA and TPZ resulted in higher radio- and cisplatin-sensitizing effects than intraperitoneal single administration. In terms of tumor cytotoxicity as a whole, including Q cells, the administration of γ-ray irradiation or cisplatin treatment combined with continuous HMTA administration is promising, taking into account the clinical use of HMTA. However, MTH should not be combined with HMTA administration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".