Novel radioisotope-based nanomedical approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Radioisotope therapy of cancer is on the rise applying mainly β-emitting radionuclides. However, due to exposure of healthy tissues, the maximum achievable radiation dose with these is limited. Auger-electron emitters (AEs) represent a promising alternative because of their mode of decay within a short nanometer range. The challenge is that their therapeutic efficacy relies on a close vicinity to DNA. To overcome this and to minimize toxicity, the construction of smart nanomedical devices is required, which ascertain tumor cell targeting with succeeding cellular uptake and nuclear translocation. In this review we describe the potential of AEs with focus on their delivery down to the DNA level and their cellular effects. Reported efforts comprise different tumor-targeting strategies, including the use of antibodies or peptides with nuclear localizing sequences. Recently, attention has shifted to various nanoparticle formats for overcoming delivery problems. To this end, these approaches have mostly been tested in cell lines in vitro applying AEs more suited for imaging than therapy. This defines a demand for nanomedical formulations with documented in vivo activity, using AEs selected for their therapeutic potential to come closer to real clinical settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".