Quantification of Ultrasonic Scattering Properties of In Vivo Tumor Cell Death in Mouse Models of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Quantitative ultrasound parameters based on form factor models were investigated as potential biomarkers of cell death in breast tumor (MDA-231) xenografts treated with chemotherapy. METHODS: Ultrasound backscatter radiofrequency data were acquired from MDA-231 breast cancer tumor–bearing mice (n = 20) before and after the administration of chemotherapy drugs at two ultrasound frequencies: 7 MHz and 20 MHz. Radiofrequency spectral analysis involved estimating the backscatter coefficient from regions of interest in the center of the tumor, to which form factor models were fitted, resulting in estimates of average scatterer diameter and average acoustic concentration (AAC). RESULTS: The ∆AAC parameter extracted from the spherical Gaussian model was found to be the most effective cell death biomarker (at the lower frequency range, r2 = 0.40). At both frequencies, AAC in the treated tumors increased significantly (P = .026 and .035 at low and high frequencies, respectively) 24 hours after treatment compared with control tumors. Furthermore, stepwise multiple linear regression analysis of the low-frequency data revealed that a multiparameter quantitative ultrasound model was strongly correlated to cell death determined histologically posttreatment (r2 = 0.74). CONCLUSION: The Gaussian form factor model–based scattering parameters can potentially be used to track the extent of cell death at clinically relevant frequencies (7 MHz). The 20-MHz results agreed with previous findings in which parameters related to the backscatter intensity (i.e., AAC) increased with cell death. The findings suggested that, in addition to the backscatter coefficient parameter ∆AAC, biological features including tumor heterogeneity and initial tumor volume were important factors in the prediction of cell death response.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".