Chitosan implants in the rat spinal cord: Biocompatibility and biodegradation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomaterials are becoming increasingly popular for use in spinal cord repair, but few studies have investigated their long-term biocompatibility in central nervous system tissue. In this study, chitosan was compared with two commercial materials, degradable polyglycolide (vicryl and polyglactin 910) and nondegradable expanded poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (Gore-Tex and ePTFE), in terms of host tissue response and biodegradation in the rat spinal cord in two different spinal cord implantation models. In an uninjured model, implants were placed in the spinal cord intrathecal space for up to 6 months. At 1 month, vicryl implants elicited an elevated macrophage/microglia response compared to chitosan and Gore-Tex, which subsided in all groups by 6 months. Fibrous encapsulation was observed for all three materials. At 6 months, the in vivo degradation of vicryl was complete, while Gore-Tex showed no signs of degradation, as assessed by mass loss and SEM. Chitosan implants showed evidence of chain degradation at 6 months as demonstrated by differential hematoxylin and eosin staining; however, this did not result in mass loss. In the second model, implants were placed directly into the spinal cord for up to 12 months. This resulted in increased immune and inflammatory responses but did not alter degradation profiles. The same trends observed for the materials in the intrathecal space were mirrored in the spinal cord tissue. These results demonstrate that chitosan is a relatively inert biomaterial that does not elicit a chronic immune response and is suitable for long-term applications for repair of the spinal cord.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".