Synergism in concomitant chemoradiotherapy of cisplatin and oxaliplatin and their liposomal formulation in the human colorectal cancer HCT116 model.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We choose to test the effect of associating chemo-radiotherapy at 8 h (the highest level of DNA-platinum) and 48 h (the lower level of DNA-platinum) to clarify if irradiation at the maximum DNA-platinum concentration could improve the synergism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Growth inhibition of the human colorectal cancer cell line HCT116 treated with cisplatin, oxaliplatin, Lipoplatin™ and Lipoxal™ plus gamma-radiation was determined by a colony formation assay. The synergism was evaluated using the combination index method. RESULTS: For 8 h and 48 h exposure to cisplatin or Lipoplatin™, followed by irradiation, drug concentrations higher than IC(50) were found to be synergistic, while a lower than IC(50) concentration was antagonistic. For oxaliplatin, exposure to a concentration above IC(50) for 8 h was synergistic, while the exposure to oxaliplatin (at any concentrations) for 48 h was antagonistic. Lipoxal™ significantly improved synergism compared to its parent drugs. All tested platinum drugs sensitize radiation-treated HCT116 cells by inducing G(2) phase. CONCLUSION: The difference of drug concentrations and the time interval between drug administration and radiotherapy could give different results in chemoradiation therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".