Determining the Radiation Enhancement Effects of Gold Nanoparticles in Cells in a Combined Treatment with Cisplatin and Radiation at Therapeutic Megavoltage Energies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combined use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy is commonly used in cancer treatment, but the toxic effects on normal tissue are a major limitation. This study assesses the potential to improve radiation therapy when combining gold nanoparticle (GNP) mediated radiation sensitization with chemoradiation compared to chemoradiation alone. Incorporation of GNPs with 2 Gy, 6 MV (megavoltage) radiation resulted in a 19 ± 6% decrease in survival of MDA-MB-231 cells. Monte-Carlo simulations were performed to assess dosimetric differences in the presence of GNPs in radiation. The results show that physics dosimetry represents a small fraction of the observed effect. The survival fraction of the cells exposed to GNPs, cisplatin, and radiation was 0.16 ± 0.007, while cells treated with cisplatin and radiation only was 0.23 ± 0.011. The presence of GNPs resulted in a 30 ± 6% decrease in the survival, having an additive effect. The concentration of the GNPs and free drug used for this study was 0.3 and 435 nM, respectively. These concentrations are relatively lower and achievable in an in vivo setting. Hence, the results of our study would accelerate the incorporation of GNP-mediated chemoradiation into current cancer therapeutic protocols in the near future.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".