MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214583783 · doi:10.3390/app112110385

A Brief Review on Challenges in Design and Development of Nanorobots for Medical Applications

2021· review· en· W3214583783 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

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsCogmation Robotics (Canada)Toronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanoroboticsSystems engineeringComputer scienceRobotEngineeringNanotechnologyArtificial intelligenceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robotics is a rapidly growing field, and the innovative idea to scale down the size of robots to the nanometer level has paved a new way of treating human health. Nanorobots have become the focus of many researchers aiming to explore their many potential applications in medicine. This paper focuses on manufacturing techniques involved in the fabrication of nanorobots and their associated challenges in terms of design architecture, sensors, actuators, powering, navigation, data transmission, followed by challenges in applications. In addition, an overview of various nanorobotic systems addresses different architectures of a nanorobot. Moreover, multiple medical applications, such as oncology, drug delivery, and surgery, are reviewed and summarized.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.209 · 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