MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790909187

Biophysical Model of Interstitial Fluid Pressure in Cervical Tumors

2005· article· en· W2790909187 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth H. Norwich, Houman Khosravani, Brige Chugh, Michael Milosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterstitial fluidLymphatic systemMedicineCancerPressure gradientCervical cancerCervixInternal medicineCardiologyPathologyMechanicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) was measured prior to treatment in patients with cervix cancer at Toronto’s Princess Margaret Hospital as part of a prospective clinical study. The results showed that there was a strong correlation between elevated IFP and patient survival, regardless of other prognostic factors such as patient age, stage or lymphatic involvement. With a view to understanding this important correlation, we developed a biophysical model of interstitial fluid flow in cancer tissue based on Darcy’s law (a mathematical law developed originally to describe water flow through porous media). Flow through the pressure-recording device was also modeled.  The result was a mathematical expression showing how measured IFP changes as a function of time, after insertion of the measurement needle into the tumor.  By analyzing 152 pressure-time curves observed in this manner, we were able to show (i) that the time constant governing the rise of measured pressure has no correlation with the steady state IFP; and (ii) that the steady IFP does not depend in any significant way on the cellular morphology or the hydraulic conductivity of the interstitium, but is more dependent on the regional vascular pressure. Our findings suggest that the source of the observed elevation of IFP in cancer patients relates to the nature and distribution of tumor vasculature, rather than to properties of cancer cells themselves.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207