Metal–Organic Frameworks (MOFs) for Cancer Therapy
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.098 | 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 it