Metallic nanoparticles as drug delivery system for the treatment of cancer
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
INTRODUCTION: The targeted delivery of anticancer agents to tumor is a major challenge because most of the drugs show off-target effect resulting in nonspecific cell death. Multifunctionalized metallic nanoparticles (NPs) are explored as new carrier system in the era of cancer therapeutics. Researchers investigated the potential of metallic NPs to target tumor cells by active and passive mechanisms, thereby reducing off-target effects of anticancer agents. Moreover, photocatalytic activity of upconversion nanoparticles (UCNPs) and the enhanced permeation and retention (EPR) effect have also gained wide potential in cancer treatment. Recent advancement in the field of nanotechnology highlights their potency for cancer therapy. AREAS COVERED: This review summarizes the types of gold and silver metallic NPs with targeting mechanisms and their potentiality in cancer therapy. EXPERT OPINION: Recent advances in the field of nanotechnology for cancer therapy offer high specificity and targeting efficiency. Targeting tumor cells through mechanistic pathways using metallic NPs for the disruption/alteration of molecular profile and survival rate of the tumor cells has led to an effective approach for cancer therapeutics. This alteration in the survival rate of the tumor cells might decrease the proliferation thereby resulting in more efficient management in the treatment of cancer.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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