Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene Materials as Xenobiotics in Living Systems: Is There a Consensus on Their Safety?
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
Carbon nanotubes and graphene are two types of nanomaterials that have unique properties and potential applications in various fields, including biomedicine, energy storage, and gas sensing. However, there is still a debate about the safety of these materials, and there is yet to be a complete consensus on their potential risks to human health and the environment. While some studies have provided recommendations for occupational exposure limits, more research is needed to fully understand the potential risks of these materials to human health and the environment. In this review, we will try to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of using carbon nanotubes and graphene as well as composites containing them in the context of their biocompatibility and toxicity to living systems. In addition, we overview current policy guidelines and technical regulations regarding the safety of carbon-based nanomaterials.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it