Promise and peril in nanomedicine: the challenges and needs for integrated systems biology approaches to define health risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1966s visionary film 'Fantastic Voyage' a submarine crew was shrunk to 100 nm in size and injected into the body of an injured scientist to repair his damaged brain. The movie (written by Harry Kleiner; directed by Richard Fleischer; novel by Isaac Asimov) drew attention to the potential power of engineered nanoscale structures and devices to construct, monitor, control, treat, and repair individual cells. Even more interesting was the fact that the film elegantly noted that the structure had to be miniaturized to a size that is not detected by the body's immune surveillance system, and highlighted the many physiological barriers that are encountered on the submarine's long journey to the target. Although the concept of miniaturizing humans remains an element of science fiction, targeted drug delivery through nanobots to treat diseases such as cancer is now a reality. The ability of nanobots to evade immune surveillance is one of the most attractive features of nanoscale materials that are exploited in the field of medicine for molecular diagnostics, targeted drug delivery, and therapy of diseases. This article will provide a concise opinion on the state-of-the-art, the challenges, and the use of systems biology-another equally revolutionary field of science-to assess the unique health hazards of nanomaterial exposures. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2018, 10:e1465. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1465 This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Emerging Technologies Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials.
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 | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".