Millimeter-wave pulsed heating in vitro: cell mortality and heat shock response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millimeter wave (MMW)-induced heating represents a promising alternative for non-invasive hyperthermia of superficial skin cancer, such as melanoma. Pulsed MMW-induced heating of tumors allows for reaching high peak temperatures without overheating surrounding tissues. Herein, for the first time, we evaluate apoptotic and heat shock responses of melanoma cells exposed in vitro to continuous (CW) or pulsed-wave (PW) amplitude-modulated MMW at 58.4 GHz with the same average temperature rise. Using an ad hoc exposure system, we generated 90 min pulse train with 1.5 s pulse duration, period of 20 s, amplitude of 10 °C, and steady-state temperature at the level of cells of 49.2 °C. The activation of Caspase-3 and phosphorylation of HSP27 were investigated using fluorescence microscopy to monitor the spatial variation of cellular response. Our results demonstrate that, under the considered exposure conditions, Caspase-3 activation was almost 5 times greater following PW exposure compared to CW. The relationship between the PW-induced cellular response and SAR-dependent temperature rise was non-linear. Phosphorylation of HSP27 was 58% stronger for PW compared to CW. It exhibits a plateau for the peak temperature ranging from 47.7 to 49.2 °C. Our results provide an insight into understanding of the cellular response to MMW-induced pulsed heating.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".