Factors influencing alginate gel biocompatibility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alginate remains the most popular polymer used for cell encapsulation, yet its biocompatibility is inconsistent. Two commercially available alginates were compared, one with 71% guluronate (HiG), and the other with 44% (IntG). Both alginates were purified, and their purities were verified. After 2 days in the peritoneal cavity of C57BL/6J mice, barium (Ba)-gel and calcium (Ca)-gel beads of IntG alginate were clean, while host cells were adhered to beads of HiG alginate. IntG gel beads, however, showed fragmentation in vivo while HiG gel beads stayed firm. The physicochemical properties of the sodium alginates and their gels were thoroughly characterized. The intrinsic viscosity of IntG alginate was 2.5-fold higher than that of HiG alginate, suggesting a greater molecular mass. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy indicated that both alginates were similar in elemental composition, including low levels of counterions in all gels. The wettabilities of the alginates and gels were also identical, as measured by contact angles of water on dry films. Ba-gel beads of HiG alginate resisted swelling and degradation when immersed in water, much more than the other gel beads. These results suggest that the main factors contributing to the biocompatibility of gels of purified alginate are the mannuronate/guluronate content and/or intrinsic viscosity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it