Long duration mild temperature hyperthermia and brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining long duration mild temperature hyperthermia (LDMH) and low dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy to enhance therapeutic killing of cancer cells was proposed many years ago. The cellular and tumour research that supports this hypothesis is presented in this review. Research describing LDMH interaction with pulsed brachytherapy and high dose-rate brachytherapy using clinically relevant parameters are compared with LDMH/LDR brachytherapy. The mechanism by which LDMH sensitizes LDR has been established as the inhibition of sublethal damage repair. The molecular mechanisms have been shown to involve DNA repair enzymes, but the exact nature of these processes is still under investigation. The relative differences between LDMH interactions with human and rodent cells are presented to help in the understanding of possible roles of LDMH in clinical application. The role of LDMH in modifying tumour blood flow and its possible role in LDR sensitization of tumours is also presented. The positive aspects of LDMH-brachytherapy for clinical application are sixfold; (1) the thermal goals (temperature, time and volume) are achievable with currently available technology, (2) the hyperthermia by itself has no detectable toxic effects, (3) thermotolerance appears to play a minor if any role in radiation sensitization, (4) TER of around 2 can be expected, (5) hypoxic fraction may be decreased due to blood flow modification and (6) simultaneous chemotherapy may also be sensitized. Combined LDMH and brachytherapy is a cancer therapy that has established biological rationale and sufficient technical and clinical advancements to be appropriately applied. This modality is ripe for clinical testing.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".