MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402886087 · doi:10.3390/ijms251910334

Application of H2N-Fe3O4 Nanoparticles for Prostate Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging in an Animal Model

2024· article· en· W4402886087 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Błasiak, David MacDonald, K Jasiński, Fong‐Yu Cheng, Bogusław Tomanek

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMagnetic resonance imagingProstateNanoparticleChemistryAnimal modelNuclear medicineCancerNuclear magnetic resonanceMedicineUrologyMaterials scienceEndocrinologyInternal medicineNanotechnologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the efficacy of a contrast agent based on H2N-Fe3O4 nanoparticles for the detection of prostate cancer in an animal model using a preclinical 9.4 T MRI system. The relaxivities r1 and r2 of the nanoparticles were 6.31 mM−1s−1 and 8.33 mM−1s−1, respectively. Nanoparticles injected in a concentration of 2 mg Fe/mL decreased the tumor-relative T1 relaxation across all animals from 100 to 76 ± 26, 85 ± 27, 89 ± 20, and 97 ± 16 12 min 1 h, 2 h, and 24 h post injection, respectively. The corresponding T1 decrease in muscle tissues was 90 ± 20, 94 ± 23, 99 ± 12, and 99 ± 14. The relative T2 changes in the tumor were 82 ± 17, 89 ± 19, 97 ± 14, and 99 ± 8 12 min, 1 h, 2 h, and 24 h post injection, respectively, while, for muscle tissues, these values were 95 ± 11, 95 ± 8, 97 ± 6, and 95 ± 10 at the corresponding time points. The differences in the relative T1 and T2 were only significant 12 min after injection (p < 0.05), although a decrease was visible at each time point, but it was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). The results showed the potential application of H2N-Fe3O4 nanoparticles as contrast agents for enhanced prostate cancer MRI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207