MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W623581242

Localisation du ganglion sentinelle au moyen de nanoparticules fluorescentes émettant dans le proche infrarouge : Application au cancer du sein

2012· preprint· fr· W623581242 on OpenAlexaff
Marion Helle

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications Et Travaux Academiques de Lorraine (Universite de Lorraine) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsCentre d'expertise et de recherche en infrastructures urbaines
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular biologyChemistryPhysicsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a reliable technique for the diagnosis of metastases in breast cancer. However, the tracers used (blue dye and radiocolloid) are not optimal because they can cause allergic reactions and major costs in waste processing. Our strategy was to use near-infrared emitting nanoparticles for the mapping of SLN: indium-based Quantum Dots (QDs) and cyanine 7 embedded in silica nanoparticles (SiNP). In a murine model of mammary carcinoma, all SLN containing lymphatic metastases could be visualized with fluorescent indium-based QDs. The biodistribution study concluded that the major organs of retention were the injection point and lymph nodes whereas liver and spleen accumulated fewer QDs. The cytotoxicity tests demonstrated a weak in vitro toxicity of indium- compared to cadmium-based QDs. SiNP show several advantages over free fluorophore such as biocompatibility, better retention in the SLN and greatest photophysical properties. SLN could be mapped as soon as 5 minutes after SiNP injection. The in vivo toxicity in mice was followed during 3 months after injection and did not reveal any signs of general or hepatic toxicity. Both fluorescent nanoparticles are thus well adapted for the mapping of the SLN and could be a favourable substitute to the actually tracers

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications Et Travaux Academiques de Lorraine (Universite de Lorraine)Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207