MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271523423 · doi:10.1002/wsbm.1329

Heart valve regeneration: the need for systems approaches

2016· review· en· W2271523423 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna Usprech, Wen Li Kelly Chen, Craig A. Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueWIREs Systems Biology and Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)Heart valveTissue engineeringRegenerative medicineBiomedical engineeringBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceBiologyComputational biologyStem cellCell biologyEngineeringMedicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tissue-engineered heart valves are promising alternatives to address the limitations of current valve replacements, particularly for growing children. Current heart valve tissue engineering strategies involve the selection of biomaterial scaffolds, cell types, and often in vitro culture conditions aimed at regenerating a valve for implantation and subsequent maturation in vivo. However, identifying optimal combinations of cell sources, biomaterials, and/or bioreactor conditions to produce functional, durable valve tissue remains a challenge. Despite some short-term success in animal models, attempts to recapitulate aspects of the native heart valve environment based on 'best guesses' of a limited number of regulatory factors have not proven effective. Better outcomes for valve tissue regeneration will likely require a systems-level understanding of the relationships between multiple interacting regulatory factors and their effects on cell function and tissue formation. Until recently, conventional culture methods have not allowed for multiple design parameters to be considered at once. Emerging microtechnologies are well suited to systematically probe multiple inputs, in combination, in high throughput and with great precision. When combined with statistical and network systems analyses, these microtechnologies have excellent potential to define multivariate signal-response relationships and reveal key regulatory pathways for robust functional tissue regeneration.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIREs Systems Biology and MedicineSame topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207