Application of Nanomaterials in Biomedical Imaging and 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
Nanomaterials, such as nanoparticles, nanorods, nanosphere, nanoshells, and nanostars, are very commonly used in biomedical imaging and cancer therapy. They make excellent drug carriers, imaging contrast agents, photothermal agents, photoacoustic agents, and radiation dose enhancers, among other applications. Recent advances in nanotechnology have led to the use of nanomaterials in many areas of functional imaging, cancer therapy, and synergistic combinational platforms. This review will systematically explore various applications of nanomaterials in biomedical imaging and cancer therapy. The medical imaging modalities include magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, single photon emission computerized tomography, optical imaging, ultrasound, and photoacoustic imaging. Various cancer therapeutic methods will also be included, including photothermal therapy, photodynamic therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. This review also covers theranostics, which use the same agent in diagnosis and therapy. This includes recent advances in multimodality imaging, image-guided therapy, and combination therapy. We found that the continuous advances of synthesis and design of novel nanomaterials will enhance the future development of medical imaging and cancer therapy. However, more resources should be available to examine side effects and cell toxicity when using nanomaterials in humans.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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