MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142806546 · doi:10.1021/nl803051f

Nanoscale Oxidative Patterning of Metallic Surfaces to Modulate Cell Activity and Fate

2009· article· en· W2142806546 on OpenAlexaff
Fiorenzo Vetrone, Fabio Variola, Paulo Tambasco de Oliveira, S. Zalzal, Ji-Hyun Yi, Johannes Sam, Karina Fittipaldi Bombonato‐Prado, A. Sarkissian, Dmitrii F. Perepichka, James D. Wuest, Federico Rosei, Antonio Nanci

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGraphene and Nanomaterials Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanotechnologyRegenerative medicineNanoscopic scaleRational designMaterials scienceCell fate determinationCellStem cellChemistryCell biologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of regenerative medicine, nanoscale physical cuing is clearly becoming a compelling determinant of cell behavior. Developing effective methods for making nanostructured surfaces with well-defined physicochemical properties is thus mandatory for the rational design of functional biomaterials. Here, we demonstrate the versatility of simple chemical oxidative patterning to create unique nanotopographical surfaces that influence the behavior of various cell types, modulate the expression of key determinants of cell activity, and offer the potential of harnessing the power of stem cells. These findings promise to lead to a new generation of improved metal implants with intelligent surfaces that can control biological response at the site of healing.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations151
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicGraphene and Nanomaterials ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207