[Correlation of tumor vessel function to synergistic antitumor effect of Avastin combined cyclophosphamide].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Dysfunction of tumor vessels renders high interstitial pressure, hypoxia and acidosis, causing the barrier of cytotoxic efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents. This study was to observe the dynamic alteration of vessel function in neuroblastoma (NB) after treatment of Avastin, and explore the correlation of tumor vessel function to synergistic antitumor effect of Avastin plus cyclophosphamide (CPM). METHODS: Human NB cells were incubated and transplanted into nude mice to form NB xenografts. Avastin at a dose of 5 mg/kg was administered to the mice through the tail veins. The mice were killed on the 6th hour, 3rd day, 6th day and 9th day after Avastin treatment, separately. Tumor vessel function was tested with fluorescein Hoechst33342 staining. NB-bearing mice were treated with Avastin plus CPM. The synergistic antitumor effects were compared when CPM was administered simultaneously with Avastin (combined regimen I) or at the time the tumor vessel function was mostly improved after Avastin administration (combined regimen II). RESULTS: The tumor vessel function was mostly improved on the 6th day after Avastin treatment. Tumor inhibition rates were 36.4% in Avastin monotherapy group, 38.2% in CPM monotherapy group, 55.9% in combined regimen I group, and 66.8% in combined regimen II group at 3 weeks after treatment. The synergistic antitumor effect was better when CPM was administered on the 6th day after Avastin treatment as compared with it used simultaneously with Avastin (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The synergistic antitumor effect can be augmented when CPM is administered at the time the tumor vessel function is mostly improved after Avastin treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".