MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099627606 · doi:10.1593/neo.07937

Cellular Magnetic Resonance Imaging: In Vivo Imaging of Melanoma Cells in Lymph Nodes of Mice

2008· article· en· W2099627606 on OpenAlexaff
Paula J. Foster, Elizabeth Dunn, Kristina E Karl, Jonatan Snir, Colleen M. Nycz, Alfred Harvey, Ron J Pettis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoplasia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphMelanomaLymphatic systemMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyMetastasisLymph nodeMedicineCancer cellCancerPreclinical imagingIn vivoCancer researchBiologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metastasis is responsible for most deaths due to malignant melanoma. The clinical significance of micrometastases in the lymph is a hotly debated topic, but an improved understanding of the lymphatic spread of cancer remains important for improving cancer survival. Cellular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a newly emerging field of imaging research that is expected to have a large impact on cancer research. In this study, we demonstrate the cellular MRI technology required to reliably image the lymphatic system in mice and to detect iron-labeled metastatic melanoma cells within the mouse lymph nodes. Melanoma cells were implanted directly into the inguinal lymph nodes in mice, and micro-MRI was performed using a customized 1.5-T clinical MRI system. We show cell detection of as few as 100 iron-labeled cells within the lymph node, with injections of larger cell numbers producing increasingly obvious regions of signal void. In addition, we show that cellular MRI allows monitoring of the fate of these cells over time as they develop into intranodal tumors. This technology will allow noninvasive investigations of cellular events in cancer metastasis within an entire animal and will facilitate progress in understanding the mechanisms of metastasis within the lymphatic system.

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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeoplasiaSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207