MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312210901 · doi:10.1021/acsnano.2c09249

The Issue of Reliability and Repeatability of Analytical Measurement in Industrial and Academic Nanomedicine

2022· review· en· W4312210901 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shahriar Sharifi, Nigel F. Reuel, Nathaniel E. Kallmyer, Ethan Sun, Markita P. Landry, Morteza Mahmoudi

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Nano · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport SystemsNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesOffice of ScienceChan Zuckerberg InitiativeHenry Moore FoundationU.S. Department of AgricultureAlfred P. Sloan FoundationCamille and Henry Dreyfus FoundationBurroughs Wellcome FundPhilomathia FoundationGordon and Betty Moore FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNanomedicineReliability (semiconductor)RepeatabilityField (mathematics)Key (lock)Perspective (graphical)Data scienceNanotechnologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer securityMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of reliability and repeatability of data in the nanomedicine literature is a growing concern among stakeholders. This perspective discusses the key differences between academia and industry in the reproducibility of data acquisition and protocols in the field of nanomedicine. We also discuss what academic researchers can learn from systems implemented in industry to standardize data acquisition and in which ways these can be efficiently adopted by the academic community.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.379
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS NanoSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207