Normal breast epithelial MCF-10A cells to evaluate the safety of carbon dots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
three distinct bottom-up synthetic routes and their safety was tested against the normal breast cell line MCF-10A. The characterization results demonstrated a similar size range and composition for all the C-dots. The MCF-10A cells were treated with different concentrations of C-dots for 24, 48 and 72 h to evaluate the cell viability over time. For the 24 h incubation, there were no significant decreases in the viability of the MCF-10A cells. For the 48 h treatment, there was a significant decrease in the viability of the cells treated with calcination-based C-dots, but without significant cellular viability changes for microwave and hydrothermal-based C-dots. For 72 h, cells treated with hydrothermal-based C-dots have the most promising viability profile. Also, compared with paclitaxel, these C-dots have a safety profile very close to that of an antineoplastic in non-tumor cells. Our results suggest that these new C-dots have potential as imaging candidates or biosensing tools as well as drug carriers, and further investigation in animal models is needed for future application in medicine.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".