Electrically Conductive Biodegradable Polymer Composite for Nerve Regeneration: Electricity‐Stimulated Neurite Outgrowth and Axon Regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal and electrically stimulated PC12 cell cultures and the implantation of nerve guidance channels were performed to evaluate newly developed electrically conductive biodegradable polymer composites. Polypyrrole (PPy) doped by butane sulfonic acid showed a significantly higher number of viable cells compared with PPy doped by polystyrenesulfonate after a 6-day culture. The PC12 cells were left to proliferate for 6 days, and the PPy-coated membranes, showing less initial cell adherence, recorded the same proliferation rate as did the noncoated membranes. Direct current electricity at various intensities was applied to the PC12 cell-cultured conductive membranes. After 7 days, the greatest number of neurites appeared on the membranes with a current intensity approximating 1.7-8.4 microA/cm. Nerve guidance channels made of conductive biodegradable composite were implanted into rats to replace 8 mm of sciatic nerve. The implants were harvested after 2 months and analyzed with immunohistochemistry and transmission electron microscopy. The regenerated nerve tissue displayed myelinated axons and Schwann cells that were similar to those in the native nerve. Electrical stimulation applied through the electrically conductive biodegradable polymers therefore enhanced neurite outgrowth in a current-dependent fashion. The conductive polymers also supported sciatic nerve regeneration in rats.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".