MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comparison of Human and Porcine Acellularized Dermis: Interactions with Human Fibroblasts In Vitro

2006· article· en· W1994495261 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Armour, Joel Fish, Kimberly A. Woodhouse, John L. Semple

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermisFibroblastDermal fibroblastMatrix (chemical analysis)ChemistryBiomedical engineeringIn vitroAnatomyMedicineChromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dermal substitutes derived from xenograft materials require elaborate processing at a considerable cost. Acellularized porcine dermis is a readily available material associated with minimal immunogenicity. The objective of this study was to evaluate acellularized pig dermis as a scaffold for human fibroblasts. METHODS: In vitro methods were used to evaluate fibroblast adherence, proliferation, and migration on pig acellularized dermal matrix. Acellular human dermis was used as a control. RESULTS: Pig acellularized dermal matrix was found to be inferior to human acellularized dermal matrix as a scaffold for human fibroblasts. Significantly more samples of human acellularized dermal matrix (83 percent, n = 24; p < 0.05) demonstrated fibroblast infiltration below the cell-seeded surface than pig acellularized dermal matrix (31 percent, n = 49). Significantly more (p < 0.05) fibroblasts infiltrated below the surface of human acellularized dermal matrix (mean, 1072 +/- 80 cells per section; n = 16 samples) than pig acellularized dermal matrix (mean, 301 +/- 48 cells per section; n = 16 samples). Fibroblasts migrated significantly less (p < 0.05) distance from the cell-seeded pig acellularized dermal matrix surface than in the human acellularized dermal matrix (78.8 percent versus 38.3 percent cells within 150 mum from the surface, respectively; n = 5). Fibroblasts proliferated more rapidly (p < 0.05) on pig acellularized dermal matrix (n = 9) than on the human acellularized dermal matrix (7.4-fold increase in cell number versus 1.8-fold increase, respectively; n = 9 for human acellularized dermal matrix). There was no difference between the two materials with respect to fibroblast adherence (8120 versus 7436 average adherent cells per section, for pig and human acellularized dermal matrix, respectively; n = 20 in each group; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that substantial differences may exist between human fibroblast behavior in cell-matrix interactions of porcine and human acellularized dermis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations53
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207