MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Controlled delivery of thymosin β4 for tissue engineering and cardiac regenerative medicine

2012· review· en· W1908389279 on OpenAlexaff
Loraine L. Y. Chiu, Lewis A. Reis, Milica Radisic

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsAngiogenesisTissue engineeringIn vivoRegenerative medicineChemistrySelf-healing hydrogelsIn vitroThymosinBiomedical engineeringCell biologyMedicineInternal medicineCellBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thymosin β4 (Tβ4) is a peptide with multiple biological functions. Here, we focus on the role of Tβ4 in vascularization, and review our studies of the controlled delivery of Tβ4 through its incorporation in biomaterials. Tβ4 promotes vascularization through VEGF induction and AcSDKP-induced migration and differentiation of endothelial cells. We developed a collagen-chitosan hydrogel for the controlled release of Tβ4 over 28 days. In vitro, the Tβ4-encapsulated hydrogel increased migration of endothelial cells and tube formation from epicardial explants that were cultivated on top of the hydrogel, compared to Tβ4-free hydrogel and soluble Tβ4 in the culture medium. In vivo, subcutaneously injected Tβ4-containing collagen-chitosan hydrogel in rats led to enhanced vascularization compared to Tβ4-free hydrogel and collagen hydrogel with Tβ4. Furthermore, the injection of the Tβ4-encapsulated hydrogel in the infarct region improved angiogenesis, reduced tissue loss, and retained left ventricular wall thickness after myocardial infarction in rats.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207