Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue engineering encompasses a multidisciplinary approach gearedtoward the development of biological substitutes designed to restoreand maintain normal function in diseased or injured tissues. Thisarticle reviews the basic technology that is used to generateimplantable tissue-engineered grafts in vitro that will exhibit characteristicsin vivo consistent with the physiology and function ofthe equivalent healthy tissue. We also examine the current trendsin tissue engineering designed to tailor scaffold construction, promoteangiogenesis and identify an optimal seeded cell source.Finally, we describe several currently applied therapeutic modalitiesthat use a tissue-engineered construct. While notable progresshas clearly been demonstrated in this emerging field, these effortshave not yet translated into widespread clinical applicability. Withcontinued development and innovation, there is optimism that thetremendous potential of this field will be realized.L’ingénierie tissulaire englobe une approche multidisciplinaireaxée sur le développement de substituts biologiques en vue derétablir et de maintenir la fonction normale de tissus lésés. L’articlequi suit passe en revue la technologie fondamentale utilisée pourgénérer des greffons implantables produits par ingénierie in vitroet possédant des caractéristiques in vivo correspondant aux tissussains équivalents sur les plans physiologique et fonctionnel.Nous examinons également les tendances actuelles en ingénierietissulaire visant à adapter des échafaudages tissulaires, à promouvoirl’angiogenèse et à dégager une source optimale de cellulesimplantables. Enfin, nous décrivons plusieurs modalités thérapeutiquesactuellement mises en application utilisant un échafaudagecréé par ingénierie tissulaire. En dépit de progrès remarquablesdans ce domaine en effervescence, les efforts déployés ne se sontpas encore traduits par une applicabilité clinique étendue. Desdéveloppements et des percées continus permettent d’être optimisteface au potentiel prodigieux de ce domaine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".