MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180177748 · doi:10.1002/wnan.1738

Endotoxin contamination of engineered nanomaterials: Overcoming the hurdles associated with endotoxin testing

2021· review· en· W3180177748 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Hannon, Adriele Prina‐Mello

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersIrish Research CouncilNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in ResearchNational Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in ResearchEuropean Commission
KeywordsNanomedicineNanotechnologyNanomaterialsMaterials scienceNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanomaterials are highly susceptible to endotoxin contamination due their large surface-to-volume ratios and endotoxins propensity to associate readily to hydrophobic and cationic surfaces. Additionally, the stability of endotoxin ensures it cannot be removed efficiently through conventional sterilization techniques such as autoclaving and ionizing radiation. In recent times, the true significance of this hurdle has come to light with multiple reports from the United States Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory, in particular, along with our own experiences of endotoxin testing from multiple Horizon 2020-funded projects which highlight the importance of this issue for the clinical translation of nanomaterials. Herein, we provide an overview on the topic of endotoxin contamination of nanomaterials intended for biomedical applications. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Emerging Technologies Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and NanobiotechnologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207