MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413122239 · doi:10.3390/jnt6030022

Current Developments of Iron Oxide Nanomaterials as MRI Theranostic Agents for Pancreatic Cancer

2025· article· en· W4413122239 on OpenAlexaff
Fong‐Yu Cheng, Bogusław Tomanek, Barbara Błasiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanotheranostics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNarodowym Centrum Nauki
KeywordsPancreatic cancerNanomaterialsNanotechnologyIron oxideCancerMedicineMaterials scienceInternal medicineMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly aggressive type of pancreatic cancer. PDAC is difficult to diagnose due to a lack of symptoms in early stages, resulting in a survival rate of less than 10%. Moreover, often cancerous tissues cannot be surgically resected due to their deep abdomen location. Therefore, early detection is the essential strategy enabling effective PDAC treatment. Over the past few years, the development of nanomaterials for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has expanded and improved imaging quality and diagnostic accuracy. Nanomaterials can be currently designed, manufactured and synthesized with other structures to provide improved diagnosis and advanced therapy. Although MRI equipped with the innovative nanomaterials became a powerful tool for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with various cancers, the detection of PDAC remains challenging. Nevertheless, recent advancements in PDAC theranostics provided progress in the detection and treatment of this challenging type of cancer. Present research in this area is focused on suitable carriers, eliminating delivery barriers, and the development of efficient anti-cancer drugs. Herein we discuss the current applications of iron oxide nanoparticles to the MRI diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NanotheranosticsSame topicNanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207