Zein‐based composites in biomedical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable research efforts have been devoted to zein-based biomaterials for tissue engineering and other biomedical applications over the past decade. The attention given to zein-based polymers is primarily attributed to their biocompatibility and biodegradability. However, due to the relatively low mechanical properties of these polymers, numerous inorganic compounds (e.g., hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, bioactive glasses, natural clays) have been considered in combination with zein to create composite materials in an attempt to enhance zein mechanical properties. Inorganic phases also positively impact on the hydrophilic properties of zein matrices inducing a suitable environment for cell attachment, spreading, and proliferation. This review covers available literature on zein and zein-based composite materials, with focus on the combination of zein with commonly used inorganic fillers for tissue engineering and drug delivery applications. An overview of the most recent advances in fabrication techniques for zein-based composites is presented and key applications areas and future developments in the field are highlighted. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 105A: 1656-1665, 2017.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".