MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fine needle aspiration biopsy to reestablish cell culture in an animal model of uveal melanoma

2009· article· en· W2133211144 on OpenAlexaff
Zélia M. Corrêa, Jean‐Claude Marshall, J.P. Souza Filho, Alexandre Nakao Odashiro, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelanomaMedicineBiopsyCell cultureFine-needle aspirationPathologyAmelanotic melanomaOphthalmologyBiologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To access the reliability of fine-needle aspiration biopsy in harvesting a sufficient amount of viable melanoma cells to establish a cell culture and maintain a melanoma cell line from an animal model of uveal melanoma. METHODS: For this study, fifteen male New Zealand albino rabbits had their right eye surgically inoculated with uveal melanoma cell line 92.1. The animals were immunosupressed with cyclosporine A using a dose schedule previously published. The animals were followed for 12 weeks. Intraocular tumor growth was monitored weekly by indirect ophthalmoscopy. After the fourth week, one animal was sacrificed per week preceded by fine-needle aspiration biopsy using a sharp 25-gauge, 1-inch long needle. Two separate aspirates were made from different areas of the tumor. Each aspirate was flushed to a separate cell culture media and sent for cell culture. The cells were frozen after two weeks when there were at least 1 million cells, which is enough to maintain a cell line. Cells were defrosted for HMB-45 immuno-stains to confirm the melanoma origin. RESULTS: Cell growth was observed from the samples harvested from 11 out of the 15 animals inoculated with uveal melanoma. All cell cultures, after defrost, immunoassayed positive for HMB-45. CONCLUSION: Fine needle aspiration biopsy seems to be a reliable method to harvest cells from solid intraocular melanomas in an animal model, to establish cell culture and to maintain a melanoma cell line.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos Brasileiros de OftalmologiaSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207