MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983847882 · doi:10.1088/0960-1317/21/5/054014

Semi-confined compression of microfabricated polymerized biomaterial constructs

2011· article· en· W1983847882 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Moraes, Ruogang Zhao, Morakot Likhitpanichkul, Craig A. Simmons, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomaterialCompression (physics)Materials scienceNanotechnologyTissue engineeringMicroelectromechanical systemsMechanical compressionBiomedical engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical forces are critical parameters in engineering functional tissue because of their established influence on cellular behaviour. However, identifying ideal combinations of mechanical, biomaterial and chemical stimuli to obtain a desired cellular response requires high-throughput screening technologies, which may be realized through microfabricated systems. This paper reports on the development and characterization of a MEMS device for semi-confined biomaterial compression. An array of these devices would enable studies involving mechanical deformation of three-dimensional biomaterials, an important parameter in creating physiologically relevant microenvironments in vitro. The described device has the ability to simultaneously apply a range of compressive mechanical stimuli to multiple polymerized hydrogel microconstructs. Local micromechanical strains generated within the semi-confined hydrogel cylinders are characterized and compared with those produced in current micro- and macroscale technologies. In contrast to previous work generating unconfined compression in microfabricated devices, the semi-confined compression model used in this work generates uniform regions of strain within the central portion of each hydrogel, demonstrated here to range from 20% to 45% across the array. The uniform strains achieved simplify experimental analysis and improve the utility of the compression platform. Furthermore, the system is compatible with a wide variety of polymerizable biomaterials, enhancing device versatility and usability in tissue engineering and fundamental cell biology studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207