MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593246114 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-6771-1_18

Optimization of Satellite Cell Culture Through Biomaterials

2017· article· en· W2593246114 on OpenAlexafffund
Sadegh Davoudi, Penney M. Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical University of South Carolina
KeywordsSelf-healing hydrogelsMaterials sciencePEG ratioBiomaterialTissue engineeringPolyethylene glycolBiomedical engineeringProtein adsorptionPolymerBiophysicsNanotechnologyChemistryComposite materialPolymer chemistryBiochemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogels, a type of biomaterial, are an invaluable part of biomedical research as they are highly hydrated and properties such as elasticity, porosity, and ligand density can be tuned to desired values. Recently, culture substrate stiffness was found to be an important regulator of muscle stem cell self-renewal. Polyethylene glycol (PEG), a synthetic polymer, can be fabricated into hydrogels that match the softness of skeletal muscle tissue, thereby providing a culture surface that is optimal for maintaining muscle stem cell self-renewal potential ex vivo. In this Chapter, we describe a method to produce flat PEG hydrogels across a range of stiffnesses, including a formulation that matches the bulk stiffness of healthy skeletal muscle (12 kPa), while maintaining a constant ligand density. Since PEG is inert to protein adsorption, the steps required to surface functionalize the hydrogel with an adhesive interface (e.g., laminin) are also described.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.374 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207