MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282978909 · doi:10.1039/d2mh00254j

Addressing a future pandemic: how can non-biological complex drugs prepare us for antimicrobial resistance threats?

2022· review· en· W4282978909 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lewis D. Blackman, Tara D. Sutherland, Paul J. De Barro, Helmut Thissen, Katherine E. S. Locock

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Horizons · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAntimicrobial agents and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaRoyal Australian Chemical InstituteUniversity of SydneyCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsPandemicAntimicrobialAntibiotic resistanceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVirologyDrug resistanceNanotechnologyIntensive care medicineMedicineMicrobiologyBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)AntibioticsMaterials scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loss of effective antibiotics through antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest threats to human health. By 2050, the annual death rate resulting from AMR infections is predicted to have climbed from 1.27 million per annum in 2019, up to 10 million per annum. It is therefore imperative to preserve the effectiveness of both existing and future antibiotics, such that they continue to save lives. One way to conserve the use of existing antibiotics and build further contingency against resistant strains is to develop alternatives. Non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs) are an emerging class of therapeutics that show multi-mechanistic antimicrobial activity and hold great promise as next generation antimicrobial agents. We critically outline the focal advancements for each key material class, including antimicrobial polymer materials, carbon nanomaterials, and inorganic nanomaterials, and highlight the potential for the development of antimicrobial resistance against each class. Finally, we outline remaining challenges for their clinical translation, including the need for specific regulatory pathways to be established in order to allow for more efficient clinical approval and adoption of these new technologies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials HorizonsSame topicAntimicrobial agents and applicationsFrench-language works237,207