MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006878588 · doi:10.2174/1381612023393585

Bisphosphonates as a Foundation of Drug Delivery to Bone

2002· review· en· W2006878588 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan Uludağ

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBisphosphonateDrug deliveryMedicineDrugPharmacologyBioavailabilityBone Density Conservation AgentsOsteoporosisChemistryInternal medicineBone density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bisphosphonates are organic analogues of pyrophosphate that are resistant to hydrolysis. Bisphosphonates exhibit an exceptional affinity to bone, which led to exploration of their utility for targeting pharmacological agents to bone. Among the pharmacological agents explored for bone delivery are radioisotopes, anti-neoplastic drugs, agents intended for augmentation of systemic bone mass, anti-inflammatory drugs and proteins. This review is intended to provide a summary of the literature on bisphosphonate-based drug delivery. A survey of therapeutic agents designed for bone targeting was provided in the first part of this review. Special emphasis was placed on the preclinical performance of the developed agents. In the second part, several aspects that were considered critical for the success of bisphosphonate-based drug delivery were explored. These aspects were oral bioavailability, protein binding of BPs, the nature of a BP-drug linkage and the choice of bone-affinity molecule. This article concludes with the author's perspective on the future of bisphosphonate-based drug delivery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations112
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207