In vivo Quantum‐Dot Toxicity Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum dots have potential in biomedical applications, but concerns persist about their safety. Most toxicology data is derived from in vitro studies and may not reflect in vivo responses. Here, an initial systematic animal toxicity study of CdSe-ZnS core-shell quantum dots in healthy Sprague-Dawley rats is presented. Biodistribution, animal survival, animal mass, hematology, clinical biochemistry, and organ histology are characterized at different concentrations (2.5-15.0 nmol) over short-term (<7 days) and long-term (>80 days) periods. The results show that the quantum dot formulations do not cause appreciable toxicity even after their breakdown in vivo over time. To generalize the toxicity of quantum dots in vivo, further investigations are still required. Some of these investigations include the evaluation of quantum dot composition (e.g., PbS versus CdS), surface chemistry (e.g., functionalization with amines versus carboxylic acids), size (e.g., 2 versus 6 nm), and shape (e.g., spheres versus rods), as well as the effect of contaminants and their byproducts on biodistribution behavior and toxicity. Combining the results from all of these studies will eventually lead to a conclusion regarding the issue of quantum dot toxicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".