A Comprehensive Review of Gold Nanoparticles in Clinical Trials: Efficacy, Safety and Future Directions
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
The rapid advancement of nanoscience in the 21st century has propelled gold nanoparticles (GNPs) to the forefront of nanomedicine research. Despite decades of intensive investigation, the clinical translation of GNPs has been hindered by concerns regarding their long-term toxicity. However, recent studies demonstrate that GNPs exhibit high biocompatibility, and emerging clinical trial data suggest that GNP-based therapies are approaching practical medical application. Interest and activity in this field have surged, and more clinical trial data on GNPs are now available than ever before. This review synthesizes findings from 33 peer-reviewed clinical studies involving 918 patients, covering diverse applications in oncology, cardiology, dermatology, nuclear imaging, oral health, vaccine delivery, and neurology. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current clinical landscape of GNPs, critically evaluating efficacy and safety outcomes, and highlighting key trends and future challenges facing the clinical adoption of GNPs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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