MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886711895 · doi:10.3390/cancers10080255

Viability Assessment Following Anticancer Treatment Requires Single-Cell Visualization

2018· article· en· W2886711895 on OpenAlexaff
Razmik Mirzayans, Bonnie Andrais, David Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViability assayApoptosisCellCancer cellCell growthPopulationCell cultureCancer researchCell biologyCancerBiologyProgrammed cell deathCytotoxicityStem cellChemistryMedicineBiochemistryIn vitroGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A subset of cells within solid tumors become highly enlarged and enter a state of dormancy (sustained proliferation arrest) in response to anticancer treatment. Although dormant cancer cells might be scored as "dead" in conventional preclinical assays, they remain viable, secrete growth-promoting factors, and can give rise to progeny with stem cell-like properties. Furthermore, cancer cells exhibiting features of apoptosis (e.g., caspase-3 activation) following genotoxic stress can undergo a reversal process called anastasis and survive. Consistent with these observations, single-cell analysis of adherent cultures (solid tumor-derived cell lines with differing p53 status) has demonstrated that virtually all cells-irrespective of their size and morphology-that remain adherent to the culture dish for a long time (weeks) after treatment with anticancer agents exhibit the ability to metabolize 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl- tetrazolium bromide (MTT). The purpose of this commentary is to briefly review these findings and discuss the significance of single-cell (versus population averaged) observation methods for assessment of cancer cell viability and metabolic activity.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207