MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385477040 · doi:10.1007/s43630-023-00466-6

Overview of methods and considerations for the photodynamic inactivation of microorganisms for agricultural applications

2023· review· en· W4385477040 on OpenAlexaff
Tariqul Islam, M. Sain, Colin Stark, Michael Fefer, Jun Liu, Todd Hoare, Wenzi Ckurshumova, Cristina Rosa

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemical & Photobiological Sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCentennial CollegeSuncor Energy (Canada)McMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrochemicalAgricultureEnvironmentally friendlyBiochemical engineeringSustainable agricultureBiotechnologyPesticideComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)NanotechnologyBusinessEngineeringBiologyMaterials scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antimicrobial resistance in agriculture is a global concern and carries huge financial consequences. Despite that, practical solutions for growers that are sustainable, low cost and environmentally friendly have been sparse. This has created opportunities for the agrochemical industry to develop pesticides with novel modes of action. Recently the use of photodynamic inactivation (PDI), classically used in cancer treatments, has been explored in agriculture as an alternative to traditional chemistries, mainly as a promising new approach for the eradication of pesticide resistant strains. However, applications in the field pose unique challenges and call for new methods of evaluation to adequately address issues specific to PDI applications in plants and challenges faced in the field. The aim of this review is to summarize in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo/in planta experimental strategies and methods used to test and evaluate photodynamic agents as photo-responsive pesticides for applications in agriculture. The review highlights some of the strategies that have been explored to overcome challenges in the field.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemical & Photobiological SciencesSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207