MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003143819 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.31030

Developing an alginate/chitosan hybrid fiber scaffold for annulus fibrosus cells

2007· article· en· W2003143819 on OpenAlexaff
Xinxin Shao, Christopher Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScaffoldMaterials scienceChitosanTissue engineeringExtracellular matrixBiomedical engineeringCell cultureFiberAggrecanIntervertebral discSpheroidBiophysicsAnatomyCell biologyComposite materialChemistryPathologyBiologyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fibrous scaffold made of alginate or alginate/chitosan was fabricated for annulus fibrosus (AF) cell culture using a wet-spinning and lyophilization technique. The scaffolds were evaluated using several in vitro tests. Scanning electron microscopy showed the scaffold fibers generally aligned in one direction with individual fiber diameters varying between 40-100 microm. The alginate/chitosan hybrid scaffold exhibited a slower degradation rate, while both scaffold types did not display any cyto-toxicity to 3T3 fibroblasts and could maintain canine AF cell growth. The AF cells retained their spherical shape within the fibrous scaffold at the beginning of the culture period and formed into cell clusters at later times. Specific extracellular matrix molecules, including collagen I, collagen II, and aggrecan, could be detected in the AF cell clusters. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using this hybrid alginate/chitosan scaffold for AF cell culture, and the potential application for intervertebral disc tissue engineering.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 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

Citations118
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207