MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155580352 · doi:10.1002/jbm.b.32964

The effect of ethylene oxide sterilization on the surface chemistry and <i>in vitro</i> cytotoxicity of several kinds of chitosan

2013· article· en· W2155580352 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo França, Doris A. Mbeh, Taraneh Djavanbakht Samani, Canh Le Tien, Mircea Alexandru Mateescu, E. Sacher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de PointeUniversité du Québec à MontréalPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChitosanSterilization (economics)BiocompatibilityChemistryNuclear chemistryFourier transform infrared spectroscopyEthylene oxideX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyLactate dehydrogenaseContact anglePolymer chemistryChemical engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surfaces of three chitosan samples, differing only in their degrees of deacetylation and of carboxyethyl chitosan were chemically characterized by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and Fourier transform infrared, both before and after sterilization with ethylene oxide. Unexpected elemental ratios suggest that surface chemical modification occurred during the processing of the original chitin, with further surface modification on subsequent sterilization, despite previous reports to the contrary. Cell viability was evaluated by direct contact methyl thiazole tetrazolium and lactate dehydrogenase assays between the chitosan particles and A549 human epithelial cells, which demonstrated that the modifications incurred on sterilization are reflected in biocompatibility changes. All the samples were found to be biocompatible and nontoxic before sterilization and remained so subsequently.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied BiomaterialsSame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207