Inductively Coupled Plasma‐Mass Spectrometry in Biodistribution Studies of (Engineered) Nanoparticles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The biodistribution of engineered inorganic nanomaterials with size characteristics of one, two, or three dimensions smaller than 100 nm is a fast‐growing analytical and toxicological research field. This review gives a detailed overview about biodistribution studies with gold (Au), silver (Ag), and titanium dioxide (TiO 2 ) nanoparticles (NPs). Exposure to NPs is possible via inhalation, injection, ingestion, and skin contact. The distribution of NPs in the body is affected by their chemical/elemental composition, size and size distribution, shape, coatings, surface properties, and their stability under the selected circumstances. The evaluation of the presence of NPs to determine their tissue distribution is not easy. NP presence can be identified by electron microscopy (EM) but this is a time‐ and labor‐consuming technique. So, instead of determining the presence of the NPs themselves, distribution studies can use elemental analysis by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) as indication for the tissue distribution of NPs. In the field of analytical research, the suitable application of ICPMS is crucial and discussed in detail. Other relevant analytical techniques, the obtained results as well as the evaluations, are presented too.
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.
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) | 0.003 | 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 it