MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regeneration of Skin and Cornea by Tissue Engineering

2008· article· en· W103571188 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Larouche, Claudie Paquet, Julie Fradette, Patrick Carrier, François A. Auger, Lucie Germain

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)CorneaTissue engineeringBiologyBiomedical engineeringEngineeringCell biologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress in tissue engineering has led to the development of technologies allowing the reconstruction of autologous tissues from the patient's own cells. Thus, tissue-engineered epithelial substitutes produced from cultured skin epithelial cells undergo long-term regeneration after grafting, indicating that functional stem cells were preserved during culture and following grafting. However, these cultured epithelial sheets reconstruct only the upper layer of the skin and lack the mechanical properties associated to the connective tissue of the dermis. We have designed a reconstructed skin entirely made from human cutaneous cells comprising both the dermis and the epidermis, as well as a well-organized basement membrane by a method named the self-assembly approach. In this chapter, protocols to generate reconstructed skin and corneal epithelium suitable for grafting are described in details. The methods include extraction and culture of human skin keratinocytes, human skin fibroblasts as well as rabbit and human corneal epithelial cells, and a complete description of the skin reconstructed by the self-assembly approach and of corneal epithelium reconstructed over a fibrin gel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations80
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207