<i>In vitro</i> transfer of keratinocytes: Comparison of transfer from fibrin membrane and delivery by aerosol spray
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a variety of approaches for the delivery of autologous keratinocytes to restore epithelial coverage of burns wounds that include utilizing cultured keratinocyte sheets, transfer of cultured keratinocytes using a membrane and more recently aerosol spraying of a keratinocyte suspension. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of direct aerosol delivery of a keratinocyte suspension with a fibrin transfer system to an in vitro wound model consisting of organotypical deepidermalized dermis (DED). A comparison was made between the number of keratinocytes delivered to DED with time, either by transfer from a fibrin membrane or using an aerosol. Additionally, the effect of application time of fibrin membranes to DED, on the number of keratinocytes delivered was investigated and compared with keratinocytes delivered by aerosol at the same time points. After 2 days culture little transfer of keratinocytes had occurred from the fibrin membrane to the DED, whereas 20% more cells were present on the DED than were initially delivered by aerosol spraying. After 7 days, aerosol-delivered cells were found to express cytokeratin K6, indicating a proliferative phenotype. The results from this study show that preconfluent keratinocytes can be delivered by aerosol, and thus may well find application clinically.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it