MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NEUROSURGERY IN THE REALM OF 10−9, PART 1

2008· review· en· W1988737370 on OpenAlexaff
J. Bradley Elder, Charles Y. Liu, Michael L.J. Apuzzo

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Communication and Nanonetworks
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanotechnologyEngineering ethicsNanomedicineMedicineApplications of nanotechnologyRealmNeurosurgeryEngineeringPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanotechnology as a science has evolved from notions and speculation to emerge as a prominent combination of science and engineering that stands to impact innumerable aspects of technology. Medicine in general and neurosurgery in particular will benefit greatly in terms of improved diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. The recent explosion in nanotechnology products, including diverse applications such as beauty products and medical contrast agents, has been accompanied by an ever increasing volume of literature. Recent articles from our institution provided an historical and scientific background of nanotechnology, with a purposeful focus on nanomedicine. Future applications of nanotechnology to neuroscience and neurosurgery were briefly addressed. The present article is the first of two that will further this discussion by providing specific details of current nanotechnology applications and research related to neuroscience and clinical neurosurgery. This article also provides relevant perspective in scale, history, economics, and toxicology. Topics of specific importance to developments or advances of technologies used by neuroscientists and neurosurgeons are presented. In addition, advances in the field of microelectromechanical systems technology are discussed. Although larger than nanoscale, microelectromechanical systems technologies will play an important role in the future of medicine and neurosurgery. The second article will discuss current nanotechnologies that are being, or will be in the near future, incorporated into the armamentarium of the neurosurgeon. The goal of these articles is to keep the neuroscience community abreast of current developments in nanotechnology, nanomedicine, and, in particular, nanoneurosurgery, and to present possibilities for future applications of nanotechnology. As applications of nanotechnology permeate all forms of scientific and medical research, clinical applications will continue to emerge. Physicians of the present and future must take an active role in shaping the design and research of nanotechnologies to ensure maximal clinical relevance and patient benefit.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.023

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicMolecular Communication and NanonetworksFrench-language works237,207