MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060526723 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2012.2206077

Modeling of Cell Cultures in Perfusion Bioreactors

2012· article· en· W2060526723 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Yan, Donald J. Bergstrom, Daniel Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioreactorScaffoldProcess (computing)Biomedical engineeringTransplantationCell cultureTissue engineeringBiological systemMaterials scienceBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceChemistryBiologyEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultivating cells and tissues in bioreactors is a critical step in forming artificial tissues or organs prior to transplantation. Among various bioreactors, the perfusion bioreactor is known for its enhanced convection through the cell-scaffold constructs. Knowledge of mass transfer is essential for controlling the cell culture process; however, obtaining this information remains a challenging task. In this research, a novel mathematical model is developed to represent the nutrient transport and cell growth in a 3-D scaffold cultivated in a perfusion bioreactor. Numerical methods are employed to solve the equations involved, with a focus on identifying the effect of factors such as porosity, culturing time, and flow rate, which are controllable in the scaffold fabrication and culturing process, on cell cultures. To validate the new model, the results from the model simulations were compared to the experimental results extracted from the literature. With the validated model, further simulations were carried out to investigate the glucose and oxygen distribution and the cell growth within the cell-scaffold construct in a perfusion bioreactor, thus providing insight into the cell culture process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207