In vivo assessment of prostate cancer response using quantitative ultrasound characterization of ultrasonic scattering properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The study here investigated quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters to assess tumour response to ultrasound-stimulated microbubbles (USMB) and hyperthermia (HT) treatment in vivo. Mice bearing prostate cancer xenografts were exposed to various treatment conditions including 1% (v/v) Definity microbubbles stimulated at ultrasound pressures 246 kPa and 570 kPa and HT duration of 0, 10, 40, and 50 min. Ultrasound radiofrequency (RF) data were collected using an ultrasound transducer with a central frequency of 25 MHz. QUS parameters based on form factor models were used as potential biomarkers of cell death in prostate cancer xenografts. Results The average acoustic concentration (AAC) parameter from spherical gaussian and the fluid-filled spherical models were the most efficient imaging biomarker of cell death. Statistical significant increases of AAC were found in the combined treatment groups: 246 kPa + 40 min, 246 kPa + 50 min, and 570 kPa + 50 min, in comparison with control tumours (0 kPa + 0 min). Changes in AAC correlates strongly (r2 = 0.62) with cell death fraction quantified from the histopathological analysis. Conclusion Scattering property estimates from spherical gaussian and fluid-filled spherical models are useful imaging biomarkers for assessing tumour response to treatment. Our observation of changes in AAC from high ultrasound frequencies was consistent with previous findings where parameters related to the backscatter intensity (AAC) increased with cell death.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".