MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097839388 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.31716

Effect of mouse VEGF<sub>164</sub> on the viability of hydroxyethyl methacrylate–methyl methacrylate‐microencapsulated cells <i>in vivo</i>: Bioluminescence imaging

2008· article· en· W2097839388 on OpenAlexaff
Dangxiao Cheng, Chuen Lo, Michael V. Sefton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViability assayIn vivoLuciferaseBioluminescenceBioluminescence imagingEx vivoMethacrylateTransfectionMaterials scienceMatrigelBiomedical engineeringIn vitroLuciferin(Hydroxyethyl)methacrylateBiophysicsMolecular biologyChemistryBiologyBiochemistryMedicineMonomerPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioluminescent imaging was used to track the viability of luciferase transfected L929 cells in poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate) (HEMA-MMA) microcapsules. Bioluminescence, as determined by Xenogen imaging after addition of luciferin to microcapsules in vitro, increased with time, consistent with an increase in cell number. Capsules were suspended in Matrigel and injected subcutaneously. The bioluminesence in vivo increased over the first 3 weeks and then decreased, both with and without the delivery of mVEGF(164) (1.2 ng/24 h/200 microcapsules in vitro); VEGF delivery was from microencapsulated doubly transfected cells (both luciferase and mVEGF(164)). VEGF delivery was sufficient to generate a greater number of vascular structures, but this did not result in the expected increase in microencapsulated cell viability. Interestingly, the number of vessels at day 28 was less than at day 21, consistent with what would be an expected reduction in VEGF secretion when cell viability is lost. The results presented here do not support the hypothesis that transfection of microencapsulated cells with VEGF is sufficient to correct the oxygen transport limitation, at least with this type of tissue engineering construct. On the other hand, bioluminescent imaging proved to be a useful method of monitoring microencapsulated cell viability over many weeks in vivo.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207