Effect of molecular weight of thermoreversible polymer onin vivo retention of rhBMP-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the effect of polymer molecular weight (MW) on rhBMP-2 delivery by thermoreversible polymers, four polymers with similar lower critical solution temperatures (20 degrees -22 degrees C) but different MWs were studied. Thermoreversible polymers were based on N-isopropylacrylamide (NiPAM), ethyl methacrylate (EMA), and N-acryloxysuccinimide (NASI), and had MWs of either approximately 49 kDa or approximately 400 kDa. The NASI content was either 0 or 1-1.6%. High MW polymers, irrespective of their NASI content, formed a stable gel with significantly lower water uptake and exhibited a dense micelle with average pore size smaller than the low MW polymers. NiPAM/EMA polymers without NASI did not conjugate with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). NiPAM/EMA polymers containing NASI, however, gave conjugation with rhBMP-2. For polymers without NASI, a high MW was essential for rhBMP-2 retention when injected intramuscularly in Sprague-Dawley rats. For NASI-containing polymers, the MW of the polymer did not make a significant difference because rhBMP-2 retention was equivalent for different size polymers. We conclude that polymer MW affects rhBMP-2 retention in vivo in polymers designed for physical entrapment of rhBMP-2, but not in polymers designed for chemical conjugation with rhBMP-2.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".