MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090114977 · doi:10.1163/1568562052843339

Effect of experimental parameters on the formation of alginate–chitosan nanoparticles and evaluation of their potential application as DNA carrier

2005· article· en· W2090114977 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly L. Douglas, Maryam Tabrizian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomaterials Science Polymer Edition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of Chicago
KeywordsChitosanNanoparticlePolymerChemical engineeringDrug deliveryMaterials scienceDrug carrierGene deliveryNanotechnologyChemistryComposite materialBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces a new procedure to prepare alginate-chitosan nanoparticles and examines several experimental parameters in relation to their formation and characteristics. Using DLS and TEM analysis, nanoparticle formation was shown to be predominantly affected by the ratio of alginate to chitosan, the molecular weight of the biopolymers and the solution pH. We report a method that results in spherical particles with mean diameters ranging from 323 nm to 1.6 microm, depending on the preparation conditions. The smallest particles were formed using lower molecular weight polymers with pH between 5.0 and 5.6 and having an alginate/chitosan weight ratio of 1:1.5. We have shown that DNA can be loaded with 60% association efficiency. Our system demonstrates suitable size, loading and release characteristics for application in drug- and gene-delivery systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations208
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomaterials Science Polymer EditionSame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207