MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4363646083 · doi:10.1002/wnan.1891

Use of niosomes for the treatment of intracellular pathogens infecting the lungs

2023· review· en· W4363646083 on OpenAlexaff
Horacio Bach, Ana C. Lorenzo‐Leal

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsVancouver Infectious Diseases CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanocarriersIntracellularNiosomeIntracellular parasiteNanomedicineImmune systemBiologyMicrovesiclesPathogenDrug deliveryBystander effectDrugMicrobiologyImmunologyChemistryVesicleNanotechnologyCell biologyPharmacologyMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The delivery of drugs in an encapsulated environment is designed to precisely target specific tissues, avoiding a systemic circulation of the drug. Lungs are organs exposed to the environment with multiple defense barriers. However, many pathogens can still colonize and infect the airways bypassing the hostile environment of the lungs. In more complicated situations, some pathogens have developed strategies to multiply and survive within macrophages, one of the first immune cell responses to clearing infections in mammals. Niosomes are artificial vesicles that can be loaded with drugs, offering an alternative strategy to treat intracellular pathogens as nanocarriers. Members of the mycobacteria genus are intracellular pathogens that have evolved to escape the immunological response, specifically in macrophages, the white cells responsible for the clearance of pathogens. This review analyzed the state-of-the-art niosome synthesis aimed at tackling the problem of intracellular pathogen therapy. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Infectious Disease Nanotechnology Approaches to Biology > Nanoscale Systems in Biology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and NanobiotechnologySame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207