MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312768038 · doi:10.1097/apo.0000000000000171

Nanotechnology Applications for Glaucoma

2015· review· en· W2312768038 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Glycomics CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlaucomaBlindnessNanomedicineNanotechnologyIntraocular pressureMedicineOphthalmologyMaterials scienceOptometryNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness worldwide, and the antiglaucoma treatments currently available suffer from various complications. Nanotechnology-based treatments show a great deal of promise in overcoming these complications and form the basis for next-generation glaucoma treatment strategies, with the help of applications such as controlled release, targeted delivery, increased bioavailability, diffusion limitations, and biocompatibility. Significant progress has been made in nanomedicine in the efficiency of antiglaucoma medications, nanofabrication systems such as microelectromechanical systems that remove the limitations of nanodevices, and tissue regeneration vesicles for developing glaucoma treatments not based on intraocular pressure. With the use of these advanced technologies, the prevention of glaucoma-induced blindness will be possible in the near future. Herein, we reviewed the recent advances in nanotechnology-based treatment strategies for glaucoma.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.317 · 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