Enhancing Clinical Translation of Cancer Using Nanoinformatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of drugs in high doses has been required due to the limitations of no specificity, short circulation half-lives, as well as low bioavailability and solubility. Higher toxicity is the result of high dosage administration of drug molecules that increase the side effects of the drugs. Recently, nanomedicine, that is the utilization of nanotechnology in healthcare with clinical applications, has made many advancements in the areas of cancer diagnosis and therapy. To overcome the challenge of patient-specificity as well as time- and dose-dependency of drug administration, artificial intelligence (AI) can be significantly beneficial for optimization of nanomedicine and combinatorial nanotherapy. AI has become a tool for researchers to manage complicated and big data, ranging from achieving complementary results to routine statistical analyses. AI enhances the prediction precision of treatment impact in cancer patients and specify estimation outcomes. Application of AI in nanotechnology leads to a new field of study, i.e., nanoinformatics. Besides, AI can be coupled with nanorobots, as an emerging technology, to develop targeted drug delivery systems. Furthermore, by the advancements in the nanomedicine field, AI-based combination therapy can facilitate the understanding of diagnosis and therapy of the cancer patients. The main objectives of this review are to discuss the current developments, possibilities, and future visions in naoinformatics, for providing more effective treatment for cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".