Biodegradable Polyphosphazene Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering and Delivery of Therapeutics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Degradable biomaterials continue to play a major role in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine as well as for delivering therapeutic agents. Although the chemistry of polyphosphazenes has been studied extensively, a systematic review of their applications for a wide range of biomedical applications is lacking. Polyphosphazenes are synthesized through a relatively well-known two-step reaction scheme which involves the substitution of the initial linear precursor with a wide range of nucleophiles. The ease of substitution has led to the development of a broad class of materials that have been studied for numerous biomedical applications including as scaffold materials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. The objective of this review is to discuss the suitability of poly(amino acid ester)phosphazene biomaterials in regard to their unique stimuli responsive properties, tunable degradation rates and mechanical properties, as well as in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility. The application of these materials in areas such as tissue engineering and drug delivery is discussed systematically. Lastly, the utility of polyphosphazenes is further extended as they are being employed in blend materials for new applications and as another method of tailoring material properties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".