MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402068349 · doi:10.1002/smll.202404591

Leveraging Non‐Radiative Transitions in Asphaltenes‐Derived Carbon Dots for Cancer Photothermal Therapy

2024· article· en· W4402068349 on OpenAlexafffund
Ozioma Udochukwu Akakuru, Jie Xing, Shuqi Huang, Zubair M. Iqbal, Steven L. Bryant, Aiguo Wu, Milana Trifkovic

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsPhotothermal therapyMaterials scienceCarbon fibersCancer therapyNanotechnologyAsphalteneRadiative transferPhotothermal effectCancerChemistryMedicineOrganic chemistryComposite materialOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer photothermal therapy leverages the capability of photothermal agents to convert light to heat for cancer cell ablation and necrosis. However, most conventional photothermal agents (Au, CuS, Pd, mesoporous silica nanoparticles, and indocyanine green dye) either face scalability challenges or photobleached upon prolonged irradiation which jeopardizes practical applications. Here, asphaltenes-derived carbon dots (ACDs, 5 nm) are rationally engineered as a low-cost and photostable photothermal agent with negligible in vivo cytotoxicity. The abundant water-solvating functional groups on the ACDs surface endows them with excellent water re-dispersibility that outperforms those of most commercial nanomaterials. Photothermal therapeutic property of the ACDs is mechanistically described by non-radiative transitions of excited electrons at 808 nm via internal conversions and vibrational relaxations. Consequently, the ACDs offer cancer photothermal therapy in mice within 15 days post-exposure to one-time near infrared irradiation. This pioneering study showcases the first utilization of asphaltenes-based materials for cancer therapy and is expected to arouse further utilization of such materials in various cancer theranostics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicNanoplatforms for cancer theranosticsFrench-language works237,207