Microdissected Tissue vs Tissue Slices—A Comparative Study of Tumor Explant Models Cultured On-Chip and Off-Chip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting patient responses to anticancer drugs is a major challenge both at the drug development stage and during cancer treatment. Tumor explant culture platforms (TECPs) preserve the native tissue architecture and are well-suited for drug response assays. However, tissue longevity in these models is relatively low. Several methodologies have been developed to address this issue, although no study has compared their efficacy in a controlled fashion. We investigated the effect of two variables in TECPs, specifically, the tissue size and culture vessel on tissue survival using micro-dissected tumor tissue (MDT) and tissue slices which were cultured in microfluidic chips and plastic well plates. Tumor models were produced from ovarian and prostate cancer cell line xenografts and were matched in terms of the specimen, total volume of tissue, and respective volume of medium in each culture system. We examined morphology, viability, and hypoxia in the various tumor models. Our observations suggest that the viability and proliferative capacity of MDTs were not affected during the time course of the experiments. In contrast, tissue slices had reduced proliferation and showed increased cell death and hypoxia under both culture conditions. Tissue slices cultured in microfluidic devices had a lower degree of hypoxia compared to those in 96-well plates. Globally, our results show that tissue slices have lower survival rates compared to MDTs due to inherent diffusion limitations, and that microfluidic devices may decrease hypoxia in tumor models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".