Significance of Fractionated Administration of Thalidomide Combined With γ-Ray Irradiation in Terms of Local Tumor Response and Lung Metastasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the significance of fractionated administration of thalidomide combined with γ-ray irradiation in terms of local tumor response and lung metastatic potential, referring to the response of intratumor quiescent (Q) cells. METHODS: B16-BL6 melanoma tumor-bearing C57BL/6 mice were continuously given 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) to label all proliferating (P) cells. The tumor-bearing mice then received γ-ray irradiation after thalidomide treatment through a single or two consecutive daily intraperitoneal administrations up to a total dose of 400 mg/kg in combination with an acute hypoxia-releasing agent (nicotinamide) or mild temperature hyperthermia (MTH). Immediately after the irradiation, cells from some tumors were isolated and incubated with a cytokinesis blocker. The responses of the Q and total (= P + Q) cell populations were assessed based on the frequency of micronuclei using immunofluorescence staining for BrdU. In other tumor-bearing mice, 17 days after irradiation, macroscopic lung metastases were enumerated. RESULTS: Thalidomide raised the sensitivity of the total cell population more remarkably than Q cells in both single and daily administrations. Daily administration of thalidomide elevated the sensitivity of both the total and Q cell populations, but especially the total cell population, compared with single administration. Daily administration, especially combined with MTH, decreased the number of lung metastases. CONCLUSION: Daily fractionated administration of thalidomide in combination with γ-ray irradiation was thought to be more promising than single administration because of its potential to enhance local tumor response and repress lung metastatic potential.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".