MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005569083 · doi:10.1515/ejnm-2012-0010

Limitations and niches of the active targeting approach for nanoparticle drug delivery

2012· article· en· W2005569083 on OpenAlexafffund
Weihsu Claire Chen, Andrew X. Zhang, Shyh‐Dar Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Nanomedicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoNational Cancer InstituteProstate Cancer FoundationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchOntario Centres of ExcellenceOntario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
KeywordsInternalizationBiodistributionTargeted drug deliveryDrug deliveryDrugNanoparticleNanomedicineBlood circulationChemistryNanotechnologyLigand (biochemistry)Cancer researchBiophysicsPharmacologyMedicineBiologyIn vitroMaterials scienceBiochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The active targeting approach has been widely employed to improve nanoparticle drug delivery. Contrary to popular conceptions, attachment of a targeting ligand to a nanopaticle does not alter its biodistribution, but only increases its internalization by target cells. Despite its potential, this strategy has drawbacks that can negate efficacy against tumors. Specifically, compared to non-targeted nanoparticles, a number of active targeting nanoparticles have decreased blood circulation time due to non-specific binding or immunogenicity, reduced tumor penetration, and high susceptibility to lysosomal degradation after internalization. In order to maximize the advantages and overcome the disadvantages, the active targeting approach is best suited for delivering membrane impermeable drugs to targets directly exposed to i.v. injected nanoparticles, such as those in circulation or in the luminal site of tumor vasculatures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations64
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NanomedicineSame topicNanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207