A mouse model of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery indicates impaired efficacy of perioperative cisplatin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Investigate the impact of interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) on progression in an orthotopic mouse model of ovarian cancer and the impact of chemotherapy delivered at various timelines following surgery. METHODS: Luciferase-expressing ID8 murine ovarian cancer cells were implanted intra-bursally and IP to C57BL/7 mice. Once disease was established by bioluminescence, 2 cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin were administered, and animals received either ICS (removal of the injected bursa/primary tumor) or anesthesia alone. Postsurgical chemotherapy was administered on the same day as the intervention (ICS/anesthesia), or on day 7 or day 28 following the intervention. Progression was quantified serially with in vivo bioluminescence imaging. Volume of ascitic fluid volume collected at necropsy was measured. RESULTS: Animals were matched for tumor burden at stratification. There was no accelerated growth of residual tumor after interval cytoreduction compared to controls. Animals who received chemotherapy on postoperative day (POD) 7 had better disease control compared to standard-of-care POD 28. Animals who underwent surgery had less ascites at necropsy compared to those who had anesthesia alone. CONCLUSIONS: In this animal model, surgical wounding with suboptimal cytoreduction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not cause accelerated expansion of residual disease. Surgical wounding appears to impair cisplatin activity when given at time of surgery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".