Development and Evaluation of Lipid-Based Formulations for Liver Cancer: A Comparative Study of Solid Lipid Nanoparticles vs. Nanostructured Lipid Carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the influence of the physical state and composition of lipid materials on the preparation performance of lipid nanocarriers, two types of carriers were prepared and compared: solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs), nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs).To assess the ability of these nanocarriers to promote effective drug delivery of drug to liver for management of liver cancer, Fenretinide (FEN) was employed as a model drug.The FEN encapsulation efficiency in these NLCS was greater than 97% compared to 93% for SLNs.Further loading capacity increased 2 folds in case of NLCs.Furthermore, the unchanged size and size distribution of these nanoparticles for 3 months at room temperature demonstrated their stability in such conditions.However, MTT experiments proved that FEN-SLNs are more effective for delivering FEN to HepG2 cells than NLCs with 3 folds enhancement in cytotoxic activity.Therefore, this study showed that by optimally controlling the lipid physical state and composition, it is possible to fabricate the solid lipid nanoparticles with desired properties.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".