Conventional in vivo irradiation procedures are insufficient to accurately determine tumor responses to non-uniform radiation fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine differences in overall tumor responses measured by volumetric assessment and bioluminescence imaging (BLI) following exposure to uniform and non-uniform radiation fields in an ectopic prostate tumor model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bioluminescent human prostate tumor xenografts were established by subcutaneous implantation into male mice. Tumors were irradiated with uniform or non-uniform field configurations using conventional in vivo irradiation procedures performed using a 225 kVp generator with custom lead shielding. Tumor responses were measured using Vernier calipers and by BLI using an in vivo imaging system. Survival was defined as the time to quadroupling of pre-treatment tumor volume. RESULTS: The correlation between BLI and tumor volume measurements was found to be different for un-irradiated (R = 0.61), uniformly irradiated (R = 0.34) and partially irradiated (R = 0.30) tumors. Uniformly irradiated tumors resulted in an average tumor growth delay of 60 days with median survival of 75 days, compared to partially irradiated tumors which showed an average growth delay of 24 days and median survival of 38 days. CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between BLI and tumor volume measurements is lower for partially irradiated tumors than those exposed to uniform dose distributions. The response of partially irradiated tumors suggests non-uniformity in response beyond physical dose distribution within the target volume. Dosimetric uncertainty associated with conventional in vivo irradiation procedures prohibits their ability to accurately determine tumor response to non-uniform radiation fields and stresses the need for image guided small animal radiation research platforms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".