Rationally Designed Ruthenium Complexes for Breast Cancer Therapy
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
Since the discovery of the anticancer potential of ruthenium-based complexes, several species were reported as promising candidates for the treatment of breast cancer, which accounts for the greatest number of new cases in women every year worldwide. Among these ruthenium complexes, species containing bioactive ligand(s) have attracted increasing attention due to their potential multitargeting properties, leading to anticancer drug candidates with a broader range of cellular targets/modes of action. This review of the literature aims at providing an overview of the rationally designed ruthenium-based complexes that have been reported to date for which ligands were carefully selected for the treatment of hormone receptor positive breast cancers (estrogen receptor (ER+) or progesterone receptor (PR+)). In addition, this brief survey highlights some of the most successful examples of ruthenium complexes reported for the treatment of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), a highly aggressive type of cancer, regardless of if their ligands are known to have the ability to achieve a specific biological function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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