A Preliminary Study of the Effect of Poly(Methacrylic Acid-Co-Methyl Methacrylate) Beads on Angiogenesis in Rodent Skin Grafts and the Quality of the Panniculus Carnosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inadequate blood supply can limit tissue graft size and thickness. As a result, there is considerable interest in vascularization strategies that might extend these limits. Beads of a copolymer of methacrylic acid and methyl methacrylate were used to enhance rat composite myocutaneous skin graft vascularization and to assess the effect on the gross morphology of the panniculus carnosus. METHODS: Beads (45 or 65 mol% methacrylic acid (n = 8) or control 100 mol% methyl methacrylate (n = 6) were spread over the wound bed and covered with the composite myocutaneous graft and analyzed 11 days later in comparison with a no-bead control group (n = 22). RESULTS: Microvessel density counts were significantly higher (p < 0.001) for grafts treated with either 45 mol% methacrylic acid or 65 mol% methacrylic acid beads compared with grafts treated with methyl methacrylate beads or no beads. There was no significant difference between grafts treated with 45 mol% methacrylic acid or 65 mol% methacrylic acid beads, and no significant differences between grafts treated with methyl methacrylate beads and no beads. Most importantly, the panniculus carnosus was significantly thicker (p < 0.001) for grafts treated in either methacrylic acid bead group compared with grafts treated with either methyl methacrylate beads or no beads. CONCLUSION: The data provide supporting evidence that methacrylic acid beads augment graft vascularization and the health of the panniculus carnosus.
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".