MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114018465 · doi:10.2217/17435889.2.3.375

Mimicking Nature‘S Nanocarrier: Synthetic Low-Density Lipoprotein-Like Nanoparticles for Cancer-Drug Delivery

2007· letter· en· W2114018465 on OpenAlexaff
Ian R. Corbin, Gang Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomedicine · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanocarriersDrug deliveryNanotechnologyNanoparticleDrugTargeted drug deliveryLow-density lipoproteinMaterials scienceChemistryPharmacologyMedicineCholesterolBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of: Nikanjam M, Blakely EA, Bjornstad KA, Shu X, Budinger TF, Forte TK: Synthetic nano-low density lipoprotein as targeted drug delivery vehicle for glioblastoma multiforme. Int. J. Pharm. 3287, 86–94 (2007) [1]. Low-density lipoproteins have long been recognized as a viable nanocarrier for targeted delivery of drug and imaging agents. Many groups have published promising initial findings; however, progress in this field has been impeded by the need to isolate low-density lipoproteins from fresh donor plasma. In a recent paper by Nikanjam and colleagues, synthetic low-density lipoprotein-like nanoparticles were prepared from commercial lipids and a bifunctional synthetic peptide containing the low-density lipoprotein receptor-binding domain and the lipid-binding motif. These particles were shown to behave similarly to native low-density lipoproteins and also to bind to the low-density lipoprotein receptor on cancer cells. Herein, we evaluate the utility of this novel delivery vehicle and discuss what role this technology may have in nanomedicine.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations37
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomedicineSame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207