MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7006668058

«In Vitro» evaluation of single walled carbon nanotubes as targeted drug delivery systems

2012· dissertation· en· W7006668058 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGraphene and Nanomaterials Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsBiocompatibilityDrug deliveryCarbon nanotubeCytotoxicityDendrimerTargeted drug deliveryDoxorubicinCovalent bondIn vivo
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have become some of the most promising drug delivery systems due to their unique properties, especially their high surface area and their ease to penetrate cells.The aim of this thesis was to render single walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) more biocompatible, and to test their ability to selectively deliver suitable dosages of anti-cancer drugs to v 3 integrins and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing cancer cells used as delivery targets.Those two targets are important to consider, as they are highly present on the cell membrane of several cancer cells, such as colon, breast, leukemic, and lung cancer.Results reveal that the combination of covalent and noncovalent surface modification of SWNTs increased SWNTs biocompatibility towards RAW 264.7 and Caco-2 cells by 17.4% and 20.8%, respectively, compared to covalently modified SWNTs.Results also show that the delivery of the widely used anti-cancer drug, doxorubicin (DOX), was higher when targeted by the SWNTs.In fact, the concentration of targeted DOX was 1.4 ( 0.3) folds higher and 2 ( 0.7) folds higher than that of free DOX in Caco-2 and RAW 264.7 cells, respectively.Similarly, the cytotoxicity of the SWNT-targeted DOX on RAW 264.7 cells at 48h post exposure was 3.6 folds higher than that of free DOX.Thus, the study reveals that SWNTs are capable to enhance drug effect on cancer cell lines.Further in vivo studies are recommended to evaluate the full potentials.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicGraphene and Nanomaterials ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207