Pharmacokinetic modeling of PSMA‐targeted nanobubbles for quantification of extravasation and binding in mice models of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) by injection of microbubbles (MBs) has shown promise as a cost-effective imaging modality for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. More recently, nanobubbles (NBs) have been proposed as novel ultrasound contrast agents. Unlike MBs, which are intravascular ultrasound contrast agents, the smaller diameter of NBs allows them to cross the vessel wall and target specific receptors on cancer cells such as the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). It has been demonstrated that PSMA-targeted NBs can bind to the receptors of PCa cells and show a prolonged retention effect in dual-tumor mice models. However, the analysis of the prolonged retention effect has so far been limited to qualitative or semi-quantitative approaches. METHODS: This work introduces two pharmacokinetics models for quantitative analysis of time-intensity curves (TICs) obtained from the CEUS loops. The first model is based on describing the vascular input by the modified local density random walk (mLDRW) model and independently interprets TICs from each tumor lesion. Differently, the second model is based on the reference-tissue model, previously proposed in the context of nuclear imaging, and describes the binding kinetics of an indicator in a target tissue by using a reference tissue where binding does not occur. RESULTS: , for the mLDRW-input model, and γ for the reference-based model, were significantly different (p-value <0.05) between free NBs and PSMA-NBs. These parameters estimated by the two models demonstrate different behaviors between PSMA-targeted and free NBs. CONCLUSIONS: These promising results encourage further quantitative analysis of targeted NBs for improved cancer diagnostics and characterization.
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".