MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391944930 · doi:10.3390/ijms25042360

Gold Nanoparticles in Neurological Diseases: A Review of Neuroprotection

2024· review· en· W4391944930 on OpenAlexaff
Ming‐Chang Chiang, Yuping Yang, Christopher J.B. Nicol, Chieh-Ju Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFu Jen Catholic University
KeywordsNeuroprotectionColloidal goldNanotechnologyMedicineNeuroscienceNanoparticlePharmacologyBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review explores the diverse applications of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) in neurological diseases, with a specific focus on Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and stroke. The introduction highlights the pivotal role of neuroinflammation in these disorders and introduces the unique properties of AuNPs. The review's core examines the mechanisms by which AuNPs exert neuroprotection and anti-neuro-inflammatory effects, elucidating various pathways through which they manifest these properties. The potential therapeutic applications of AuNPs in AD are discussed, shedding light on promising avenues for therapy. This review also explores the prospects of utilizing AuNPs in PD interventions, presenting a hopeful outlook for future treatments. Additionally, the review delves into the potential of AuNPs in providing neuroprotection after strokes, emphasizing their significance in mitigating cerebrovascular accidents' aftermath. Experimental findings from cellular and animal models are consolidated to provide a comprehensive overview of AuNPs' effectiveness, offering insights into their impact at both the cellular and in vivo levels. This review enhances our understanding of AuNPs' applications in neurological diseases and lays the groundwork for innovative therapeutic strategies in neurology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations84
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicNanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207