ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2017
Numerical Model Study of In Vivo Magnetic Nanoparticle Tumor Heating.
Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review on numerical modeling for magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia: Progress and challenges.Journal of thermal biology · 2020Review
- [Simulation of the relationship between magnetic medium parameters and heating temperature in magnetic fluid hyperthermia].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Iron oxide nanoparticles are currently under investigation as heating agents for hyperthermic treatment of tumors. Major determinants of effective heating include the biodistribution and minimum iron oxide loading required to achieve adequate heating at practically achievable magnetic field strengths. These inter-related criteria ultimately determine the practicality of this approach to tumor treatment. Further, in our experience the currently used treatment assessment criterion for hyperthermia treatment-cumulative equivalent minutes at 43 °C, CEM
objectivesCouple numerical models to experimental measurements to study the relative heating effectiveness described by cell death predictions.
methodsFEM numerical models were applied to increase the understanding of a carefully calibrated series of experiments in mouse mammary adenocarcinoma.
resultsThe numerical model results indicate that minimum tumor loadings between approximately 1.3 to 1.8 mg of Fe per cm
conclusionWe show that including multiple cell death processes operating in parallel within the numerical models provides valuable perspective on the likelihood of successful treatment. SIGNIFICANCE: We show and believe that these assessment methods are more accurate than a single assessment figure of merit based only on the comparison of thermal histories, such as the CEM method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.