MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593103269 · doi:10.1080/09205063.2015.1059018

Experimental approaches to vascularisation within tissue engineering constructs

2015· review· en· W1593103269 on OpenAlexaff
M. D. Sarker, Daniel Chen, David J. Schreyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomaterials Science Polymer Edition · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsSaskatoon City HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTissue engineeringExtracellular matrixIn vivoFunction (biology)Vascular networkVascular tissueMatrix (chemical analysis)Biomedical engineeringCell biologyBiologyMedicineAnatomyChemistryBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tissue engineering opens up a new area to restore the function of damaged tissue or replace a defective organ. Common strategies in tissue engineering to repair and form new tissue containing a functional vascular network include the use of cells, growth factors, extracellular matrix proteins, and biophysical stimuli. Yet, formation of well-distributed, interconnected, and stable vascular network still remains challenging. In addition, anastomoses with host vasculature upon implantation and long-time survival of the new blood vessel in vivo are other critical issues to be addressed. This paper presents a brief review of recent advances in vascularization in vitro as well as in vivo for tissue engineering, along with suggestions for future research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations62
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomaterials Science Polymer EditionSame topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207