MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183965807

Correlation of photosensitizer delivery to lipoproteins and efficacy in tumor and arthritis mouse models; comparison of lipid-based and Pluronic P123 formulations.

2003· article· en· W2183965807 on OpenAlexaff
Rubinah K. Chowdhary, Isha Sharif, Namrata Chansarkar, David Dolphin, Leslie G. Ratkay, Sean P. Delaney, Howard Meadows

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotosensitizerIn vivoPhotodynamic therapyPoloxamerVerteporfinArthritisDrugDrug deliveryPharmacologyMedicineChemistryImmunologySurgeryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was the use of animal models to demonstrate the importance of drug delivery (verteporfin) to plasma lipoproteins in order to attain efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in vivo. METHODS: Photosensitizers appropriately formulated in various vehicles such as pluronics and lipid-based systems were compared to delivery of the drug in DMSO in two in vivo systems. The first was a tumor model using male DBA/2 mice inoculated intradermally with M1 rhabdomyosarcoma cells and in the second, arthritis in the MRL -lpr mouse strain was enhanced by two intradermal injections of complete Freunds adjunct. RESULTS: Those formulations in which the drug was in a monomeric form were better able to transfer drug to lipoproteins, which in turn led to superior PDT in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to introduce drug in monomeric form into the circulation correlates well with efficacy of photosensitizer formulations in mouse arthritis and tumor models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207