Viability of HEMA-MMA Microencapsulated Model Hepatoma Cells in Rats and the Host Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small diameter hydroxyethyl methacrylate-methyl methacrylate (HEMA-MMA; 75% HEMA) microcapsules containing an aggregate of viable rat hepatoma H4IIEC3 cells, after implantation into an omental pouch in Wistar rats, contained viable cells at 7 days but not 14 days. A similar transplantation of microencapsulated aggregates of human hepatoma HepG2 cells did not result in viable cells even at 7 days. The loss of viability was attributed to the tissue reaction, because both encapsulated cell types remained viable in vitro. However, it is not clear if the cells lost their viability in vivo, leading to the aggressive tissue reaction or if the latter caused the cells to starve or otherwise die. The tissue reactions to microcapsules containing rat or human hepatoma cells at day 1 was one cell layer thick and avascular. At later times, tissue reactions were comprised of three regions: macrophages, fibroblasts, and some foreign body giant cells apposed to the polymer membrane, a dense region of fibroblasts and collagen, and a region of vascularized granulation tissue. Prompt vascularization of the tissue reactions occurred after 4 days and was maintained for up to 14 days. Even at 14 days, immune cells were observed, suggesting a continued immune response toward antigens shed from the encapsulated cells.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".