MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1603718547 · doi:10.1002/9781118856017.ch11

Nanomedicine in Diabetes: Using Nanotechnology in Prevention and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

2014· other· en· W1603718547 on OpenAlexaff
Radoslav Savić, Dušica Maysinger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilestoneDiabetes mellitusMedicineInsulin deliveryApplications of nanotechnologyIntensive care medicineDiseaseDisease managementDiabetes managementNanotechnologyType 2 diabetesType 1 diabetesInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review, we provide our view of the state and direction of nanotechnology research in diabetes mellitus, focusing mainly on the last 5 years. Select milestone or historical papers are mentioned in the review as appropriate, but insulin-related nano research is intentionally omitted as it has been recently extensively reviewed. Full onset diabetes is a disease with diverse etiology, increasing prevalence, and no cure. Its successful management relies almost entirely on regular glucose monitoring, pharmacotherapy, dietary compliance, and exercise. The early detection of the disease/disease-risk is especially important in dealing with this serious condition. Here, we review select advances (focusing mainly on the last 5 years) in the (i) nano-based glucose sensors, (ii) role of nanotechnology in genomics and its relevance to diabetes, (iii) antidiabetic nanomedicines, and (iv) novel approaches to the development of an artificial pancreas. Limited milestone or historical papers are mentioned as appropriate, and selected reviews for insulin delivery are provided. It is anticipated that the ongoing advances in the application of nanoscience and nanotechnology in diabetes will lead to continued improvement in the detection, prevention, and management of the disease. Limited milestone or historical papers are mentioned as appropriate, but in depth discussion of insulin delivery is intentionally omitted (recent reviews provided as a reference).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPancreatic function and diabetes→French-language works237,207→