<i>In vivo</i> evaluation of whey protein-based biofilms as scaffolds for cutaneous cell cultures and biomedical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the toxicity, biodegradability and immunogenicity of newly developed whey protein-based biofilms for possible use as biomaterials for medical applications. Biofilms were prepared using (A) a whey protein isolate plasticized with either diethylene glycol (DEG) or glycerol (GLY), and (B) beta-lactoglobulin (betaLGA) plasticized with DEG. The biofilms were implanted subcutaneously into Balb/c mice. Analyses were performed at various time points. At 15, 30 and 60 days post-implantation, no necrotic zones or exudates were present at the recipient sites. The biofilms began to degrade as early as 15 days post-implantation, as evidenced by erosion and crumbling. The macroscopic observations were supported by tissue analyses revealing no tissue necrosis or degradation and confirming that the biodegradation of the biofilms began as early as 15 days post-implantation and was almost complete after 60 days. The biodegradation was accompanied by significant leukocyte infiltration at 15 days which significantly decreased at 60 days. The absence of splenomagaly in the implanted mice confirms that these biofilms were not immunogenic. Whey protein-based biofilms are biocompatible and biodegradable and may be of interest for medical applications such as scaffolds for cutaneous cell cultures and skin recovery in burn patients.
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) | 0.000 | 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".