Photosensitizer spatial heterogeneity and its impact on personalized interstitial photodynamic therapy treatment planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SignificancePersonalized photodynamic therapy (PDT) treatment planning requires knowledge of the spatial and temporal co-localization of photons, photosensitizers (PSs), and oxygen. The inter- and intra-subject variability in the photosensitizer concentration can lead to suboptimal outcomes using standard treatment plans.AimWe aim to quantify the PS spatial variation in tumors and its effect on PDT treatment planning solutions.ApproachThe spatial variability of two PSs is imaged at various spatial resolutions for an orthotopic rat glioma model and applied in silico to human glioblastoma models to determine the spatial PDT dose, including in organs at risk. An open-source interstitial photodynamic therapy (iPDT) planning tool is applied to these models, deriving the spatial photosensitizer quantification resolution that consistently impacts iPDT source placement and power allocation.ResultsThe ex vivo studies revealed a bimodal photosensitizer distribution in the tumor. The concentration of the PS can vary by a factor of 2 between the tumor core and rim, with slight variation within the core but a factor of 5 in the rim. An average sampling volume of 1 mm3 for photosensitizer quantification will result in significantly different iPDT planning solutions for each case.ConclusionsAssuming homogeneous photosensitizer distribution results in suboptimal therapeutic outcomes, we highlight the need to predict the photosensitizer distribution before source placement for effective treatment plans.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".