MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366597564 · doi:10.3390/cancers15082381

Non-Invasive Imaging Modalities in Intravesical Murine Models of Bladder Cancer

2023· review· en· W4366597564 on OpenAlexaff
Sydney Relouw, George J. Dugbartey, Alp Şener

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModalitiesMagnetic resonance imagingPositron emission tomographyBladder cancerBioluminescence imagingCancerMedical imagingUltrasoundRadiologyMedical physicsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bladder cancer (BCa) is the sixth most prevalent cancer in men and seventeenth most prevalent cancer in women worldwide. Current treatment paradigms have limited therapeutic impact, suggesting an urgent need for the investigation of novel therapies. To best emulate the progression of human BCa, a pre-clinical intravesical murine model is required in conjunction with existing non-invasive imaging modalities to detect and evaluate cancer progression. Non-invasive imaging modalities reduce the number of required experimental models while allowing for longitudinal studies of novel therapies to investigate long-term efficacy. In this review, we discuss the individual and multi-modal use of non-invasive imaging modalities; bioluminescence imaging (BLI), micro-ultrasound imaging (MUI), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) in BCa evaluation. We also provide an update on the potential and the future directions of imaging modalities in relation to intravesical murine models of BCa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207