MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021916112 · doi:10.1002/wnan.1637

Nanomedicine and drug delivery systems in cancer and regenerative medicine

2020· review· en· W3021916112 on OpenAlex
Elisa Garbayo, Simon Pascual‐Gil, Carlos Rodríguez‐Nogales, Laura Saludas, Ander Estella‐Hermoso de Mendoza, María J. Blanco‐Prieto

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

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersFundación Caja NavarraAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsNanomedicineDrug deliveryMedicineRegenerative medicinePharmacologyBiodistributionDrugContext (archaeology)Stem cellNanotechnologyIn vivoBiotechnologyBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanomedicine and drug delivery technologies play a prominent role in modern medicine, facilitating better treatments than conventional drugs. Nanomedicine is being increasingly used to develop new methods of cancer diagnosis and treatment, since this technology can modulate the biodistribution and the target site accumulation of chemotherapeutic drugs, thereby reducing their toxicity. Regenerative medicine provides another area where innovative drug delivery technology is being studied for improved tissue regeneration. Drug delivery systems can protect therapeutic proteins and peptides against degradation in biological environments and deliver them in a controlled manner. Similarly, the combination of drug delivery systems and stem cells can improve their survival, differentiation, and engraftment. The present review summarizes the most important steps carried-out by the group of Prof Blanco-Prieto in nanomedicine and drug delivery technologies. Throughout her scientific career, she has contributed to the area of nanomedicine to improve anticancer therapy. In particular, nanoparticles loaded with edelfosine, doxorubicin, or methotrexate have demonstrated great anticancer activity in preclinical settings of lymphoma, glioma, and pediatric osteosarcoma. In regenerative medicine, a major focus has been the development of drug delivery systems for brain and cardiac repair. In this context, several microparticle-based technologies loaded with biologics have demonstrated efficacy in clinically relevant animal models such as monkeys and pigs. The latest research by this group has shown that drug delivery systems combined with cell therapy can achieve a more complete and potent regenerative response. Cutting-edge areas such as noninvasive intravenous delivery of cardioprotective nanomedicines or extracellular vesicle-based therapies are also being explored. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Emerging Technologies Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Oncologic Disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.294 · 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