Electroporation-Based Therapy for Brain Tumors: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroporation-based therapy (EBT), as a high-voltage-pulse technology has been prevalent with favorable clinical outcomes in the treatment of various solid tumors. This review paper aims to promote the clinical translation of EBT for brain tumors. First, we briefly introduced the mechanism of pore formation in a cell membrane activated by external electric fields using a single cell model. Then, we summarized and discussed the current in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies, in terms of (1) the safety and effectiveness of EBT for brain tumors in animal models, and (2) the blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption induced by EBT. Two therapeutic effects could be achieved in EBT for brain tumors simultaneously, i.e., the tumor ablation induced by irreversible electroporation (IRE) and transient BBB disruption induced by reversible electroporation (RE). The BBB disruption could potentially improve the uptake of antitumor drugs thereby enhancing brain tumor treatment. The challenges that hinder the application of EBT in the treatment of human brain tumors are discussed in the review paper as well.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".