MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017700229 · doi:10.1002/mabi.201100419

Nanomaterials for Ocular Drug Delivery

2012· review· en· W2017700229 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Bioscience · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAdvanced Drug Delivery Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrug deliveryNiosomeDrugBioavailabilityNanotechnologyLiposomeSelf-healing hydrogelsTargeted drug deliveryPharmacologyMedicineChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient drug delivery to the eye remains a challenging task for pharmaceutical scientists. Due to the various anatomical barriers and the clearance mechanisms prevailing in the eye, conventional drug delivery systems, such as eye drop solutions, suffer from low bioavailability. More invasive methods, such as intravitreal injections and implants, cause adverse effects in the eye. Recently, an increasing number of scientists have turned to nanomaterial-based drug delivery systems to address the challenges faced by conventional methods. This paper highlights recent applications of various nanomaterials, such as polymeric micelles, hydrogels, liposomes, niosomes, dendrimers, and cyclodextrins as ocular drug delivery systems to enhance the bioavailability of ocular therapeutic agents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.268 · 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