MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003771178 · doi:10.1039/c0cs00003e

Strategies for the intracellular delivery of nanoparticles

2010· review· en· W2003771178 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Society Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNanotechnologyDECIPHERComputer scienceNanoparticleVariety (cybernetics)Materials scienceBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to target contrast agents and therapeutics inside cells is becoming important as we strive to decipher the complex network of events that occur within living cells and design therapies that can modulate these processes. Nanotechnology researchers have generated a growing list of nanoparticles designed for such applications. These particles can be assembled from a variety of materials into desirable geometries and configurations and possess useful properties and functionalities. Undoubtedly, the effective delivery of these nanomaterials into cells will be critical to their applications. In this tutorial review, we discuss the fundamental challenges of delivering nanoparticles into cells and to the targeted organelles, and summarize strategies that have been developed to-date.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.271 · 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