MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134203244 · doi:10.1080/10611860600874538

Block copolymer micelles as delivery vehicles of hydrophobic drugs: Micelle–cell interactions

2006· review· en· W2134203244 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of drug targeting · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMicelleCopolymerDrug deliveryDrugIn vivoChemistryDrug carrierInternalizationPharmacologyOrganic chemistryAqueous solutionCellBiochemistryMedicinePolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One-third of drugs in development are water insoluble and one-half fail in trials because of poor pharmacokinetics. Block copolymer micelles are nanosized particles that can solubilize hydrophobic drugs and alter their kinetics in vitro and in vivo. However, block copolymer micelles are not solely passive drug containers that simply solubilize hydrophobic drugs; cells internalize micelles. To facilitate the development of advanced, controlled, micellar drug delivery vehicles, we have to understand the fate of micelles and micelle-incorporated drugs in cells and in vivo. With micelle-based drug formulations recently reaching clinical trials, the impetus for answers is ever so strong and detailed studies of interactions of micelles and cells are starting to emerge. Most notably, the question arises: Is the internalization of block copolymer micelles carrying small molecular weight drugs an undesired side effect or a useful means of improving the effectiveness of the incorporated drugs?

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.611
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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