Calculation of Singlet Oxygen Dose from Photosensitizer Fluorescence and Photobleaching During mTHPC Photodynamic Therapy of MLL Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the therapeutic outcome of photodynamic therapy (PDT) requires knowledge of the amount of cytoxic species generated. An implicit approach to assessing PDT efficacy has been proposed where changes in photosensitizer (PS) fluorescence during treatment are used to predict treatment outcome. To investigate this, in vitro experiments were performed in which Mat-LyLu cells were incubated in meta-tetra(hydroxyphenyl)chlorin (mTHPC) and then irradiated with 652 nm light. PS concentration, fluence rate and oxygenation were independently controlled and monitored during the treatment. Fluorescence of mTHPC was monitored during treatment and, at selected fluence levels, cell viability was determined using a colony-formation assay. Singlet oxygen dose was calculated using four different models and was compared with cell survival. For the dose metric based on singlet oxygen-mediated PS photobleaching, a universal relationship between cell survival and singlet oxygen dose was found for all treatment parameters. Analysis of the concentration dependence of bleaching suggests that the lifetime of singlet oxygen within the cell is 0.05-0.25 micros. Generation of about 9 x 10(8) molecules of singlet oxygen per cell reduces the surviving fraction by 1/e.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".