Poly(butyl methacrylate‐<i>co</i>‐methacrylic acid) tissue engineering scaffold with pro‐angiogenic potential <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A poly(butyl methacrylate-co-methacrylic acid) (BMA-MAA) scaffold was fabricated by an in situ polymerization solvent casting/particulate leaching technique. It displayed high porosity (85-90%), pore interconnectivity, and a pore size range of 100-650 microm. Compression testing of the scaffolds demonstrated a dependence of the compressive stiffness on several fabrication variables including the ratio of monomer to salt used during the polymerization, the degree of salt fusion, and the choice of alternative comonomers to BMA. Subcutaneous implantation of BMA-MAA scaffolds in mice revealed an increased level of histological angiogenesis in tissue invading the pores of the scaffold compared to a BMA control, consistent with the prediction that methacrylic acid (MAA) containing copolymer beads are angiogenic in a wound healing context. At postoperative day 21, the capillary density in the BMA-MAA scaffolds was 56 +/- 13/mm(2) as compared to 32 +/- 8/mm(2) for the BMA scaffolds. With further investigation, it is expected that this biomaterial capable of eliciting an angiogenic response will have widespread application in tissue engineering.
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) | 0.001 | 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".