MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surface reactivity measurements as required for grouping and read-across: An advanced FRAS protocol

2017· article· en· W2621031125 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Gandon, Kai Werle, Nicole Neubauer, Wendel Wohlleben

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsNanomaterialsReactivity (psychology)Oxidative stressProtocol (science)In vivoChemistryRepeatabilityResolution (logic)In vitroNanotechnologyMaterials scienceComputer scienceBiologyBiochemistryMedicineChromatographyBiotechnologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxidative stress is a widely accepted paradigm associated with different adverse outcomes of particulate matter, including nanomaterials. It has frequently been identified in in vitro and in vivo studies and different assays have been developed for this purpose. Here we describe a newly developed multi-dose protocol of the FRAS assay (Ferric Reduction Ability of Serum). The purpose of this SOP is the measurement of the surface reactivity of nanomaterials under physiological conditions. Antioxidative components as present in human blood serum (HBS) serve as reporter molecules. The assay separates the oxidative damage from the read-out of the reporter molecules. The results show significantly enhanced repeatability with better sensitivity towards low reactivity, enabling application of FRAS both to a rough grouping by reactive vs. passive nanomaterials and further to substantiation of read-across by enhanced resolution of the similarity between different nanoforms of the same substance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207