MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986960976 · doi:10.1063/1.3530034

Targeted Delivery of Magnetic Cobalt Nanoparticles to the Eye Following Systemic Administration

2010· article· en· W1986960976 on OpenAlexafffund
Mirko Dengler, Katayoun Saatchi, James P. Dailey, Joanne A. Matsubara, Frederick S. Mikelberg, Urs O. Häfeli, Sonia N. Yeung, Wolfgang Schütt, Maciej Zborowski

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPfizer Canada
KeywordsBiodistributionMagnetic nanoparticlesDrug deliveryOptic nerveMagnetic resonance imagingIn vivoMaterials scienceMedicineBiomedical engineeringNanoparticleNanotechnologyOphthalmologyRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eye offers a unique environment in the body to study progression and response to treatment of various ocular, vascular, and neurologic diseases as they occur in vivo. Due to its clear optical media, we can directly view blood vessels and nerve tissue, which often reflect the health of these tissues in the rest of the body. There are limitations to topical, periocular, or intraocular drug delivery that include access of the drug to the posterior segment of the eye and complications such as local scarring, hemorrhage, retinal detachment, cataract formation, or infection. The aim of this proof‐of‐concept study was to determine if systemically delivered magnetic cobalt nanoparticles (Co‐MNP) could be directed to the eye of C57Bl mice via a unidirectional magnetic field. Both radioactive biodistribution studies and confocal imaging confirmed the increased presence of magnetic particles in the eye following magnetic targeting.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207