Treatment of pancreatic cancer cells in vitro using ultrasound, microbubbles, and gemicitabine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasonically stimulated microbubbles can enhance the localized delivery and cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy drugs to cells by transient permeabilization of cell membranes in a process called sonoporation. However, there is insufficient data investigating whether ultrasound and microbubbles (USMB) enhances the delivery and cytotoxicity of the nucleoside analog (NA) gemcitabine. To address this gap in the literature, cancer cells were sonicated using low frequency ultrasound in combination with Definity® microbubbles in the presence of NAs. Viability analyses show that gemcitabine in combination with USMB additively enhanced cell death, suggesting that these two therapies mediate cell death independent of one another. This was confirmed when USMB treatment did not enhance (nor impair) the retention of a radiolabeled NA molecule. Altogether, these data suggest that the laws of diffusion forcing small molecules across a barrier cannot solely describe the efficacy of sonoporation; there are obviously important biological factors specific to the molecule intended to be delivered to consider 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".