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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many research projects are underway to improve the diagnosis and therapy in ophthalmology. Indeed, visual acuity deficits affect 285 million people worldwide and different strategies are being developed to strengthen patient care. One of these strategies is the use of gold nanoparticles (GNP) for their multiple properties and their ability to be used as both diagnosis and therapy tools. This review exhaustively details research developing GNPs for use in ophthalmology. The toxicity of GNPs and their distribution in the eye are described through in vitro and in vivo studies. All publications addressing the pharmacokinetics of GNPs administered in the eye are extensively reviewed. In addition, their use as biosensors or for imaging with optical coherence tomography is illustrated. The future of GNPs for ophthalmic therapy is also discussed. GNPs can be used to deliver genes or drugs through different administration routes. Their antiangiogenic and anti-inflammatory properties are of great interest for different ocular pathologies. Finally, GNPs can be used to improve stereotactic radiosurgery, brachytherapy, and photothermal therapy because of their many properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.011 |
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 it