MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411360359 · doi:10.1002/inmd.20250021

Cold atmospheric plasma combined with nanoparticles in cancer therapy

2025· article· en· W4411360359 on OpenAlexaff
Yunhao Wang, Fei Cao, Gbenga A. Martins, Yifan Lin, Zhaowei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInterdisciplinary medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlasma Applications and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China Stem Cell and Translational ResearchBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsAtmospheric-pressure plasmaCancer therapyPlasmaNanoparticleCancerMedicineMaterials scienceInternal medicineNanotechnologyPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This review explores the application of cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) and nanoparticles (NPs) in cancer therapy, highlighting their potential to enhance treatment efficacy and minimize side effects. CAP generates reactive oxygen and nitrogen species that selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells, while NPs improve drug delivery, enhance targeting precision, and reduce adverse effects on healthy tissues. By summarizing various types of NPs, including gold, silver, magnetic, and other NPs, we evaluate their individual and combined effects with CAP across different cancer models. Our findings suggest that combined CAP‐NPs significantly enhance therapeutic outcomes by increasing cancer cell sensitivity and minimizing damage to surrounding tissues. This synergistic approach not only aligns with previous research on CAP's selective toxicity but also reveals new possibilities for optimizing cancer treatment through targeted NP delivery. Further clinical research is needed to establish the safety and efficacy of this combination, paving the way for novel, patient‐specific treatment strategies with improved outcomes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterdisciplinary medicineSame topicPlasma Applications and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207