Peptide Hydrogels as Immunomaterials and Their Use in Cancer Immunotherapy Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peptide-based hydrogel biomaterials have emerged as an excellent strategy for immune system modulation. Peptide-based hydrogels are supramolecular materials that self-assemble into various nanostructures through various interactive forces (i.e., hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic interactions) and respond to microenvironmental stimuli (i.e., pH, temperature). While they have been reported in numerous biomedical applications, they have recently been deemed promising candidates to improve the efficacy of cancer immunotherapies and treatments. Immunotherapies seek to harness the body's immune system to preemptively protect against and treat various diseases, such as cancer. However, their low efficacy rates result in limited patient responses to treatment. Here, the immunomaterial's potential to improve these efficacy rates by either functioning as immune stimulators through direct immune system interactions and/or delivering a range of immune agents is highlighted. The chemical and physical properties of these peptide-based materials that lead to immuno modulation and how one may design a system to achieve desired immune responses in a controllable manner are discussed. Works in the literature that reports peptide hydrogels as adjuvant systems and for the delivery of immunotherapies are highlighted. Finally, the future trends and possible developments based on peptide hydrogels for cancer immunotherapy applications are 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".