A feasibility study of singlet oxygen explicit dosmietry (SOED) of PDT by intercomparison with a singlet oxygen luminescence dosimetry (SOLD) system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An explicit dosimetry model has been developed to calculate the apparent reacted <sup>1</sup><i>O</i><sub>2</sub> concentration ([<sup>1</sup><i>O</i><sub>2</sub>]<sub>rx</sub>) in an in-vivo model. In the model, a macroscopic quantity, g, is introduced to account for oxygen perfusion to the medium during PDT. In this study, the SOED model is extended for PDT treatment in phantom conditions where vasculature is not present; the oxygen perfusion is achieved through the air-phantom interface instead. The solution of the SOED model is obtained by solving the coupled photochemical rate equations incorporating oxygen perfusion through the air-liquid interface. Experiments were performed for two photosensitizers (PS), Rose Bengal (RB) and Photofrin, in solution, using SOED and SOLD measurements to determine both the instantaneous [<sup>1</sup><i>O</i><sub>2</sub>] as well as cumulative [<sup>1</sup><i>O</i><sub>2</sub>]<sub>rx</sub> concentrations, where [<sup>1</sup><i>O</i><sub>2</sub>=(1/τ<sub>▵</sub>)•∫[<sup>1</sup><i>O</i><sub>2</sub>]<i>dt</i>. The PS concentrations varied between 10 and 100 mM for RB and ~200 mM for Photofrin. The resulting magnitudes of [<sup>1</sup><i>O</i><sub>2</sub>] were compared between SOED and SOLD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".