Exploiting colloidal drug aggregation for drug delivery: From promise to prediction using computational tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colloidal drug aggregates are amorphous nanoparticles formed by the self-assembly of hydrophobic small molecule drugs. They can be leveraged as drug-rich nanoparticle formulations for drug delivery. However, it is difficult to predict which drugs will form colloidal aggregates, which stabilizers will be effective, and what the in vivo fate of the nanoparticles will be. These challenges can be addressed, in part, with computational tools including artificial intelligence such as machine learning. Molecular dynamics simulations have been used to improve our understanding of the intermolecular forces that govern the assembly of colloidal drug aggregates. Several predictive tools exist to identify aggregators, but these are typically used to eliminate aggregators from screening libraries rather than design drug delivery formulations. Colloidal drug aggregates require stabilizers to prevent particle growth and precipitation. Computational analyses have been used to predict which colloidal drug aggregators can be stabilized by a particular small molecule excipient and to identify drug-stabilizer pairs. Successful stabilization has enabled colloidal drug aggregate evaluation for applications such as nanomedicine and sustained release. Additionally, certain colloid-forming drugs can be useful for co-delivery of nucleic acids. In future studies, computational tools can be developed to predict the biological activity of colloidal drug aggregates, building upon other approaches currently used for lipid nanoparticles and other modalities. Ultimately, leveraging computational strategies to improve the design of colloidal drug aggregates can help realize the potential of this high drug-loading delivery platform.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".