MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478478403 · doi:10.1201/b15582-35

Targeting Strategies in Photodynamic Therapy for Cancer Treatment

2013· book-chapter· en· W2478478403 on OpenAlexaff
Marlène Pernot, Céline Frochot, Régis Vanderesse, Muriel Barberi‐Heyob

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicGalectins and Cancer Biology
Canadian institutionsCentre d'expertise et de recherche en infrastructures urbaines
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyCancerPhotodynamic therapyCervical cancerParanasal sinusesCancer therapyTargeted therapyOncologyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The selective, targeted delivery of photosensitizers to diseased cells is one of the major problems in photodynamic therapy (PDT) and is still a challenge to take up. One area of importance is the elaboration of targeted photosensitizers. Targeted therapy is a promising new therapeutic strategy, created to overcome growing problems of contemporary medicine, such as drug toxicity and drug resistance. An emerging modality of this approach is targeted PDT (TPDT) with the main aim of improving delivery of the photosensitizer to cancer tissue and, at the same time, enhancing specificity and efficiency of PDT. Depending on the mechanism of targeting, we can suggest dividing the strategies of TPDT into “passive,” “active,” and “activatable”; in the latter case, the photosensitizer is activated only in the targeted tissue. In this review, contemporary strategies of TPDT are described, including innovative new concepts, such as targeting assisted by peptides and aptamers, multifunctional nanoplatforms with navigation by magnetic field, or “photodynamic molecular beacons” activatable by enzymes and nucleic acid. The imperative of introducing a new paradigm of PDT, focused on the concepts of heterogeneity and dynamic state of tumor, is also called for.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGalectins and Cancer BiologyFrench-language works237,207