MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226006057 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-14879

Cellular Effects Nanosilver on Cancer and Non-cancer Cells: Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts

2022· dissertation· en· W4226006057 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica S. Sheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxidative stressCancer cellCancerAscorbic acidEndoplasmic reticulumCell cycleReactive oxygen speciesCellHuman healthChemistryCancer researchCell biologyBiologyMedicineBiochemistryInternal medicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanosilver is extremely small silver particles (1-100 nm in diameter) and have antimicrobial, antifungal, and antiviral properties, which make them one of the most commonly used nanoparticles.There is a lack of biological and toxicological knowledge on the impacts of nanosilver on cellular stress responses, as well as human and environmental health.Nanosilver and ascorbic acid has the potential to be an anticancer therapeutic.In this study, human colon cancer (HCT116) and intestinal epithelial (HIEC-6) cells were used to study nanosilver effects in cancer versus non-cancer cells.Nanosilver increased Nrf2 protein expression and disrupted the cell cycle at the G1 and G2/M phases.Hypoxia attenuated nanosilver-induced oxidative and endoplasmic reticulum stress responses.Nanosilver induced significant mitochondrial oxidative stress in HCT116, whereas it did not in the non-cancer HIEC-6 and nanosilver/sodium ascorbate co-treatment was preferentially lethal to HCT116 cells, which is promising for further research for anticancer therapies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207