MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200560872 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.612659

Novel Methods and Approaches for Safety Evaluation of Nanoparticle Formulations: A Focus Towards In Vitro Models and Adverse Outcome Pathways

2021· review· en· W3200560872 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaDepartment of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsNanotoxicologyNanomedicineRisk analysis (engineering)NanotechnologyBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceMedicineNanoparticleMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanotoxicology is an emerging field employed in the assessment of unintentional hazardous effects produced by nanoparticles (NPs) impacting human health and the environment. The nanotoxicity affects the range between induction of cellular stress and cytotoxicity. The reasons so far reported for these toxicological effects are due to their variable sizes with high surface areas, shape, charge, and physicochemical properties, which upon interaction with the biological components may influence their functioning and result in adverse outcomes (AO). Thus, understanding the risk produced by these materials now is an important safety concern for the development of nanotechnology and nanomedicine. Since the time nanotoxicology has evolved, the methods employed have been majorly relied on in vitro cell-based evaluations, while these simple methods may not predict the complexity involved in preclinical and clinical conditions concerning pharmacokinetics, organ toxicity, and toxicities evidenced through multiple cellular levels. The safety profiles of nanoscale nanomaterials and nanoformulations in the delivery of drugs and therapeutic applications are of considerable concern. In addition, the safety assessment for new nanomedicine formulas lacks regulatory standards. Though the in vivo studies are greatly needed, the end parameters used for risk assessment are not predicting the possible toxic effects produced by various nanoformulations. On the other side, due to increased restrictions on animal usage and demand for the need for high-throughput assays, there is a need for developing and exploring novel methods to evaluate NPs safety concerns. The progress made in molecular biology and the availability of several modern techniques may offer novel and innovative methods to evaluate the toxicological behavior of different NPs by using single cells, cell population, and whole organisms. This review highlights the recent novel methods developed for the evaluation of the safety impacts of NPs and attempts to solve the problems that come with risk assessment. The relevance of investigating adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) in nanotoxicology has been stressed in particular.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.176 · 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