The effects of hyperthermia on human hepatocellular carcinoma stem and mature cancer cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can recur following radiofrequency ablation and other hyperthermic treatment modalities. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are a subpopulation of HCC cells that are difficult to eradicate and largely responsible for tumor recurrences. Thus, the principal objective of this study was to determine whether human HCC CSCs are relatively thermal-resistant compared to non-stem or mature cancer cells (MCCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MCCs were derived from a human HCC cell line using fluorescence activated cell sorting. Each cell population was exposed to 65°C heat for 0-16min and survival documented at various time points. RESULTS: Cell survival curves were similar in CSC and MCCs throughout the 16min heat exposure period. Maximum killing was obtained after 12-14min of heat exposure. Cytoprotective, heat shock proteins-70 (HSP70) and -90 (HSP90) mRNA expression were not disproportionately increased in CSCs. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that human HCC CSCs are not more thermal resistant than MCCs and therefore, do not support the hypothesis that HCC recurrences following hyperthermic treatment reflect CSC thermal-resistance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".