MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236563805 · doi:10.1002/adma.201503598

Living Cell Factories ‐ Electrosprayed Microcapsules and Microcarriers for Minimally Invasive Delivery

2015· article· en· W2236563805 on OpenAlexaff
S. M. Naqvi, Srujana Vedicherla, Jennifer Gansau, Tom McIntyre, Michelle Doherty, Conor T. Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrocarrierBiomaterialElectrohydrodynamicsMaterials scienceNanotechnologyBiomedical engineeringRegenerative medicineTissue engineeringCellEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimally invasive delivery of "living cell factories" consisting of cells and therapeutic agents has gained wide attention for next generation biomaterial device systems for multiple applications including musculoskeletal tissue regeneration, diabetes and cancer. Cellular-based microcapsules and microcarrier systems offer several attractive features for this particular purpose. One such technology capable of generating these types of systems is electrohydrodynamic (EHD) spraying. Depending on various parameters, including applied voltage, biomaterial properties (viscosity, conductivity) and needle geometry, complex structures and arrangements can be fabricated for therapeutic strategies. The advances in the use of EHD technology are outlined, specifically in the manipulation of bioactive and dynamic material systems to control size, composition and configuration in the development of minimally invasive micro-scaled biopolymeric systems. The exciting therapeutic applications of this technology, future perspectives and associated challenges are also presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations98
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid DynamicsFrench-language works237,207