MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884953712

Nanotechnology as a Platform for Personalized Cancer Therapy

2017· article· en· W2884953712 on OpenAlex
Kevin E. Shopsowitz

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueUBC Faculty of Medicine medical journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Communication and Nanonetworks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancer therapyPersonalized medicineCancerMedicineCancer treatmentIntensive care medicineNanotechnologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsBiologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conventional approach to cancer therapy is hardly personal: while chemotherapy has done wonders to save and prolong lives, it can cause damaging side effects in many patients and has limited efficacy in certain cancers. Newer personalized approaches to cancer therapy look to target specific molecular characteristics of an individual’s cancer cells, with the aim of improving cure rates and reducing side effects. To achieve this goal, we need to integrate the abundant information that is now readily obtained from cancers–e.g., their mutational landscapes and gene expression profiles–with relevant therapeutic strategies. Nanotechnology is a powerful tool that is being studied extensively for this purpose. This article will describe some key areas where nanotechnology is presently being used to enable personalized approaches to cancer treatment along with future directions. I will also discuss the roadblocks that must be overcome for these technologies to achieve widespread clinical use.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.301 · 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