MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910596009 · doi:10.1080/17425247.2019.1567490

Evaluating the safety profile of focused ultrasound and microbubble-mediated treatments to increase blood-brain barrier permeability

2019· review· en· W2910596009 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Delivery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineIdentifierClinical trialRandomized controlled trialBlood–brain barrierTrial registrationPharmacologyMedical physicsPathologyInternal medicineComputer scienceCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Treatment of several diseases of the brain are complicated by the presence of the skull and the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Focused ultrasound (FUS) and microbubble (MB)-mediated BBB treatment is a minimally invasive method to transiently increase the permeability of blood vessels in targeted brain areas. It can be used as a general delivery system to increase the concentration of therapeutic agents in the brain parenchyma.Areas covered: Over the past two decades, the safety of using FUS+MBs to deliver agents across the BBB has been interrogated through various methods of imaging, histology, biochemical assays, and behavior analyses. Here we provide an overview of the factors that affect the safety profile of these treatments, describe methods by which FUS+MB treatments are controlled, and discuss data that have informed the assessment of treatment risks.Expert opinion: There remains a need to assess the risks associated with clinically relevant treatment strategies, specifically repeated FUS+MB treatments, with and without therapeutic agent delivery. Additionally, efforts to develop metrics by which FUS+MB treatments can be easily compared across studies would facilitate a more rapid consensus on the risks associated with this intervention.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03321487.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03119961.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02343991.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03608553.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03626896.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03616860.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03671889.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03712293.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.284 · 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