Spatial Measurements of Perfusion, Interstitial Fluid Pressure and Liposomes Accumulation in Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The heterogeneous intra-tumoral accumulation of liposomes is a critical determinant of their efficacy. Both the chaotic tumor microcirculation and elevated IFP are linked to the heterogeneous intra-tumoral distribution of nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems such as liposomes. In the present study, the relationship between tumor microcirculation, elevated IFP, and accumulation of nanoparticles was investigated through in vivo experimentation. This was accomplished by evaluation of the tumor microcirculation using dynamic contrast enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT) and measurement of tumor IFP using a novel image-guided robotic needle placement system connected to the micro-CT scanner. The intra-tumoral accumulation of liposomes was determined by CT image-based assessment of a nanoparticle liposomal formulation that stably encapsulate the contrast agent iohexol (CT-liposomes). CT imaging allowed for co-localization of the spatial distribution of tumor hemodynamics, IFP and CT-liposome accumulation in an individual subcutaneous xenograft mouse model of breast cancer. Measurements led to the discovery that perfusion and plasma volume fraction are strong mediators of the intra-tumoral distribution of liposomes. Furthermore, the results suggest that IFP plays an indirect role in mediating liposome distribution through modulating blood flow.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".