MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138732873 · doi:10.1117/1.430005

Study of photodynamic reactions in human blood

2000· article· en· W2138732873 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Douplik, Alexander A. Stratonnikov, В. Б. Лощенов, Victoria Lebedeva, Valentina M. Derkacheva, I. Alex Vitkin, V. D. Rumyanceva, S. G. Kusmin, А. Ф. Миронов, E. A. LUK'YANETS

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotodynamic therapyComputer scienceNanotechnologyData scienceMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative studies of oxygen consumption, changes of photosensitizer fluorescence, and photodestruction of erythrocytes, and photodestruction of oxygen transport protein hemoglobin were performed during photodynamic reaction in whole and hemolyzed blood with phthalocyanines, chlorines, porphyrins, and methylene blue photosensitizers in vitro and in selected cases in vivo. The present work deals with the investigation of blood oxygen saturation SO2 and photosensitizer fluorescence during and immediately after light irradiation in the photodynamic therapy process. It has been observed that SO2 behavior strongly correlates with the type of photosensitizer. The decrease of photosensitizer fluorescence (photobleaching) during light irradiation can be followed by the recovery of the photosensitizer fluorescence immediately after interruption of the irradiation within 6-8 min. The levels of photodestruction of erythrocytes in whole blood and photodestruction of hemoglobin in hemolyzed blood in combination with the above photosensitizers reveal the influence of photodynamic reactions upon the ability of blood to transport oxygen. Maximal photohemolysis activity has been found with chlorine p6 photosensitizers.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207