Preparation, Characterization, and <i>In Vitro</i> and <i>In Vivo</i> Evaluation of Cellulose/Soy Protein Isolate Composite Sponges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of cellulose/soy protein isolate (SPI) sponges was prepared using a freeze-drying process. The effect of the SPI content on the structure of the sponges was characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FT-IR), X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). It showed that the sponges were porous in structure, and that the size of the pores increased and the thickness of the pore walls decreased as the SPI content of the sponges increased. The biocompatibility and biodegradability of the sponges were evaluated in vitro and in vivo. The cell culture experiment and SEM observations showed that L929 fibroblast cells grew and spread well on the surface and cross-section of the composite sponges. The results from MTT (3-[4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazoly1]-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide) assay indicated that the cell viability of L929 cultured in extracts from SPI-containing sponges was higher than that from the pure cellulose sponge. The historical analysis and SEM observation revealed that the SPI-containing sponges implanted from 1 to 8 months in rats exhibited better in vivo biocompatibility and biodegradability than the pure cellulose sponge. This was due to the incorporation of SPI into cellulose and to the freeze-drying process which formed large pores and thin pore walls in the composite sponges, promoting the migration of cells and tissue into the sponges, leading to gradual fusing with the implants. The new cellulose/SPI sponges thus have potential applications as biomaterials with good biocompatibility and biodegradability.
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".