MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998402731 · doi:10.1089/ten.tec.2009.0178

Modeling Process-Induced Cell Damage in the Biodispensing Process

2009· article· en· W1998402731 on OpenAlexafffund
Minggan Li, Xiaoyu Tian, Ning Zhu, David J. Schreyer, Daniel Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueTissue Engineering Part C Methods · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsCell damageBiomanufacturingProcess (computing)CellCell injuryMaterials scienceComputer scienceBiological systemChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging biomanufacturing processes involve incorporation of living cells into various processes and systems by employing different cell manipulation techniques. Among them, biodispensing, in which the cell suspension is extruded via a fine needle under pressurized air, is a promising technique because of its high efficiency. Cells in this process are continually subjected to mechanical forces and may be damaged if the force or manipulation time exceeds certain levels. Modeling cell injury incurred in these processes is lacking in the literature. This article presents a method to quantify the force-induced cell damage in the biodispensing process. This method consists of two steps: first is to establish cell damage laws to relate cell damage to hydrostatic pressure/shear stress; and the second is to represent the process-induced forces experienced by cells during the biodispensing process and apply the established cell damage law to represent the percentage of cell damage. Schwann cells and 3T3 fibroblasts were used to validate the model and the comparisons of experimental and simulation results show the effectiveness of the method presented in this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations97
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTissue Engineering Part C MethodsSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207