Metal–Organic Frameworks (MOFs) for Cancer Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOFs exhibit inherent extraordinary features for diverse applications ranging from catalysis, storage, and optics to chemosensory and biomedical science and technology. Several procedures including solvothermal, hydrothermal, mechanochemical, electrochemical, and ultrasound techniques have been used to synthesize MOFs with tailored features. A continued attempt has also been directed towards functionalizing MOFs via "post-synthetic modification" mainly by changing linkers (by altering the type, length, functionality, and charge of the linkers) or node components within the MOF framework. Additionally, efforts are aimed towards manipulating the size and morphology of crystallite domains in the MOFs, which are aimed at enlarging their applications window. Today's knowledge of artificial intelligence and machine learning has opened new pathways to elaborate multiple nanoporous complex MOFs and nano-MOFs (NMOFs) for advanced theranostic, clinical, imaging, and diagnostic purposes. Successful accumulation of a photosensitizer in cancerous cells was a significant step in cancer therapy. The application of MOFs as advanced materials and systems for cancer therapy is the main scope beyond this perspective. Some challenging aspects and promising features in MOF-based cancer diagnosis and cancer therapy have also been discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".