Tunable Collagen Hydrogels are Modified by the Therapeutic Agents They are Designed to Deliver
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
Injectable hydrogels are increasingly being developed for biomedical applications due to their ability to be delivered in a minimally invasive manner. One potential use for such materials is in cell delivery for cardiac regeneration. While the materials' properties are often characterized, how these properties (and in particular gelation) are affected by the addition of the therapeutic agent(s) they are designed to deliver is often overlooked. The aim of this study was to examine the interactive effects between collagen-based hydrogels and different additives (cells and microspheres). The results demonstrated that the incorporation of either cells or microspheres to a collagen hydrogel decreased its gelation time and increased its viscosity. Increased concentrations of the EDC/NHS cross-linker resulted in greater loss of cell viability. However, it was found that this cell loss could be minimized by delivering cells with the cross-linker scavenger glycine. A better understanding of how materials and cells (and other additives) respond to each other will help towards the goal of improving scaffolds being developed for regenerative therapy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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