Interstitial Fluid Pressure in Cervical Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) is elevated in most malignant tumors, mainly as a result of the abnormal tumor vasculature that develops from unregulated angiogenesis. Theoretical models predict that IFP should correlate with capillary flow resistance in tumors, and therefore also with perfusion and oxygenation. However, a prospective clinical study in patients with cervical cancer at Princess Margaret Hospital failed to demonstrate a relationship between IFP and oxygenation. Despite this, high IFP was strongly associated with inferior survival after radiotherapy independent of clinical prognostic factors and tumor oxygen status. This suggests that IFP and direct needle oxygen measurements may provide information about different aspects of tumor oxygenation, such as chronic versus intermittent hypoxia. Alternatively, IFP may reflect an aspect of tumor biology that is largely unrelated to perfusion and oxygenation. One possibility is that tumors with high pretreatment angiogenesis levels, as indicated by high IFP, may be more radioresistant because the vascular endothelium is more likely to survive during and after treatment. The mechanistic link between elevated IFP and the abnormal tumor vasculature and the strong prognostic effect of IFP in our cervix study together suggest that drugs targeted at angiogenesis, when combined with radiotherapy, may lead to improved tumor control and patient survival.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".