MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064934410 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34101

Some aspects of the host response to methacrylic acid containing beads in a mouse air pouch

2012· article· en· W2064934410 on OpenAlexaff
Riteshkumar J. Patel, Michael V. Sefton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMethacrylic acidMaterials scienceExudateExtracellular matrixGelatinHyaluronic acidMethyl methacrylateChemokineMolecular biologyAngiogenesisBiochemistryBiologyReceptorCancer researchPolymerizationPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exudate analysis indicated that both hydroxamated methacrylic acid-based (HX-MAA) and methacrylic acid-based (MAA) beads without hydroxamation, implanted in an air pouch with gelatin discs, elicited similar biological responses, with both resulting in high cell counts and chemokine (MCP3) levels, relative to control, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) beads. HX-MAA beads had been used elsewhere to restore homeostatic levels of extracellular matrix degrading enzymes, matrix metalloproteases, whereas the MAA beads (without hydroxamation) promoted angiogenesis in wound healing models. Furthermore, both beads appeared to activate exudate macrophages in the classical manner (high IL12/IL10 ratio) at day 4. Exudate macrophages, which were isolated by a magnetic bead protocol and analyzed by RT-PCR, showed a mixed response: elevated levels of an alternative marker (mannose receptor C type lectin) and a classical marker (IL6) were seen, in macrophages from the HX-MAA and MAA group compared to the PMMA group at day 4. A partial shift to an alternatively activated phenotype was seen by day 10.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207