MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761902729 · doi:10.1002/adfm.201703606

Microfabricated Drug Delivery Devices: Design, Fabrication, and Applications

2017· article· en· W2761902729 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

VenueAdvanced Functional Materials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAdvanced Drug Delivery Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransdermalMicrofabricationDrug deliveryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceFabricationSystems engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Microfabrication technology has enabled the development of novel controlled‐release devices that possess an integration of structural, mechanical, and perhaps electronic features, which may address challenges associated with conventional delivery systems. In this feature article, microfabricated devices are described in terms of materials, mechanical design, working principles, and fabrication methods, all of which are key features for production of multifunctional, highly effective drug delivery systems. In addition, the current status and future prospects of different types of microfabricated devices for controlled drug delivery are summarized and analyzed with an emphasis on various routes of administration including ocular, oral, transdermal, and implantable systems. It is likely that microfabrication technology will continue to offer new, alternative solutions to design advanced and sophisticated drug delivery devices that promise to significantly improve medical care.

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), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.285 · 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