MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158304286 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.32554

<i>In vitro</i> response of monocyte‐derived macrophages to a decellularized pericardial biomaterial

2009· article· en· W2158304286 on OpenAlexafffund
Marianne B. Ariganello, Rosalind S. Labow, J. Michael Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDecellularizationMaterials scienceForeign-body giant cellExtracellular matrixCell biologyBiomaterialBiomedical engineeringIn vitroTissue engineeringBiophysicsNanotechnologyBiologyBiochemistryPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decellularized tissue-derived heart valves are an example of biomaterials derived from natural scaffolds. These types of implants are increasing in popularity although their in vivo performance is still only poorly understood and has, at times, been catastrophic. It is apparent that better understanding is required before these biomaterials can be used safely. In this study, the human monocyte-derived macrophage (MDM) response to decellularized bovine pericardium (DBP) was used as a model to predict the biological performance of these materials on implantation. Human monocytes differentiated on tissue culture polystyrene (TCPS) for 14 days were trypsinized and reseeded onto DBP, TCPS, and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) for 48 h. The MDMs on DBP contained less intracellular and extracellular esterase activity compared with MDMs on TCPS and PDMS, as well as less acid phosphatase activity than on TCPS. As well, morphologically, MDMs on DBP were less spread, less multinucleated and did not display many lamellipodia. Taken together, these data represent the first evidence of the MDM response to intact, native extracellular matrix, demonstrating that these cells reacted with an altered, possibly reduced foreign body response on this natural scaffold compared with the two control surfaces. This in vitro MDM cell model may provide a novel method for predicting and elucidating the biological performance of tissue-derived biomaterials, thereby directing a more rational design of biomaterials for tissue regeneration purposes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207