MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319650669 · doi:10.1166/jbn.2013.1689

Direct Patterning of Free Standing Three Dimensional Silicon Nanofibrous Network to Facilitate Multi-Dimensional Growth of Fibroblasts and Osteoblasts

2013· article· en· W2319650669 on OpenAlexaff
Priyatha Premnath, Bo Tan, Krishnan Venkatakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Nanotechnology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanotechnologyElectrospinningNanofiberSiliconTissue engineeringSubstrate (aquarium)Regeneration (biology)Nanoscopic scaleBiocompatible materialMatrix (chemical analysis)Drug deliveryBiomedical engineeringOptoelectronicsComposite materialPolymerCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of tissue engineering has invigorated interest in novel tissue regeneration matrices. An ideal matrix that simulates the natural extra cellular matrix (ECM) should be nanoscale, with three dimensionally interconnected nanofibers which cannot be generated by current methods such as electrospinning. Furthermore, certain biocompatible materials like silicon cannot be electrospun. We present a novel MHz laser synthesis method that permits sub-100 nm scale structures on any material, including silicon, that mimic the natural ECM. Owing to its three dimensional interlinked nature, the nanofibrous substrate is shown to guide the osteoblasts and fibroblasts to grow not only planarly to the surface, as is true for conventional scaffolds, but also expand and grow upward vertically. This method of synthesis demonstrates promise for novel three dimensional (3D) scaffolds that can assist in tissue and bone regeneration and a myriad of other applications such as drug delivery and biosensing.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical NanotechnologySame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207