A standardized in vivo protocol for ocular biodistribution of gold nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective drug administration plays a pivotal role in the treatment of eye diseases. Each route of ocular administration has its advantages and limitations, but a common challenge is the low bioavailability of drugs at the target sites. New delivery nanosystems are required to ensure sufficient drug concentration over time at the target in order to improve therapeutic efficacy. Gold nanoparticles represent a promising strategy for improving drug delivery to the eye, but they can be difficult to track in biological systems. To optimize the formulations, it is crucial to understand the biodistribution profiles of nanoparticles in the eye. Designing, interpreting and compiling research on the ocular biodistribution of nanoparticles raise major challenges, particularly considering the various nanoparticle-based ocular delivery systems and the multiple available animal models. The in vivo spatiotemporal distribution of nanoparticles in the eye is generally measured at specific time points after animal euthanasia and eye collection. In this technical article, we propose a detailed standardization of in vivo protocols for ocular biodistribution studies of gold-based delivery systems in rabbits following topical application. The protocol covers all steps, including enucleation, eye dissection of various ocular tissues and their digestion, as well as ex vivo analysis of gold (Au) atom content from gold nanoparticles by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) at specific time points.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".