Postelectrospinning modifications for alginate nanofiber‐based wound dressings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alginate nanofibers have been attractive for potential tissue regeneration applications due to a combination of their moisture retention ability and large surface area available in a nonwoven nanofiber form. This study aims to address several challenges in alginate nanofiber application, including the lack of structural stability in aqueous environment and limited cell attachment as compared to commercial wound dressings, via examining crosslinking techniques. In addition to the commonly performed divalent ion crosslinking, a glutaraldehyde double-crosslinking step and polylysine addition were applied to an electrospun alginate nanofiber nonwoven mat. With optimization of the electrospinning solution, nanofiber morphology was maintained after the two-stage crosslinking process. Extensibility of the nanofiber mat reduced after the crosslinking process. However, both aqueous stability and cell attachment improved after the postspinning modifications, as shown through degradation tests in phosphate buffered saline solutions and fibroblast cell culture studies, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".