Applications and safety of gold nanoparticles as therapeutic devices in clinical trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of gold nanoparticles (GNPs) in medicine is an emerging field of translational research with vast clinical implications and exciting therapeutic potential. However, the safety of using GNPs in human subjects is an important question that remains unanswered. This study reviews over 20 clinical trials focused on GNP safety and aims to summarize all the clinical studies, completed and ongoing, to identify whether GNPs are safe to use in humans as a therapeutic platform. In these studies, GNPs were implemented as drug delivery devices, for photothermal therapy, and utilized for their intrinsic therapeutic effects by various routes of delivery. These studies revealed no major safety concerns with the use of GNPs; however, the number of trials and total patient number remains limited. Multi-dose, multi-center blinded trials are required to deepen our understanding of the use of GNPs in clinical settings to facilitate translation of this novel, multifaceted therapeutic device. Expanding clinical trials will require collaboration between clinicians, scientists, and biotechnology companies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it