Collagen-Poly(N-Isopropylacrylamide)???Based Membranes for Corneal Stroma Scaffolds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of using the biocompatibility of collagen-based blended biomaterials as cell-delivery systems in ocular surface reconstruction in vivo. METHODS: Collagen-based composites that were blended with synthetic acrylamide-based polymers [poly(N-isopropylacrylamide), pNIPAAm] were transplanted into corneal pockets of white rabbits, with a 3-mm epithelial window. Epithelial cells were allowed to migrate onto the polymer. Transplanted eyes were examined daily for up to 30 days, after which animals were killed for histologic examination. Immunohistochemistry was performed for vimentin, alpha-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA), CD4, and CD8. Gold-chloride staining was performed to observe neuronal regrowth. Human amniotic membranes (AMs) and sham-operated corneas served as controls. All animals received topical antibiotics (levofloxacin) without the use of steroids or other immunosuppressive agents. RESULTS: The pNIPAAm polymer allowed smooth epithelialization of the cornea, which was similar to the epithelialization observed in sham controls and AM-transplanted eyes. Histology revealed that epithelium overlying the polymer was bundled into several layers, without the orientation observed with AM and sham controls. The polymer gradually thinned and was gradually replaced by host tissue. Vimentin- and alpha-SMA-positive cells were found in stromal pockets up to 1 month following polymer transplantation. These cells were responsible for slight subepithelial haze near the wound edge. CD4- and CD8-positive lymphocytes were also observed in the vicinity of the polymer. Gold-chloride staining showed nerve regrowth in the wound edge after 1 month and subepithelial branches after 3 months. CONCLUSION: Collagen-pNIPAAm blended polymers may be effective as biomaterials to be used in the early stages of lamellar stromal replacement
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) | 0.000 | 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".