MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621842261 · doi:10.1039/c6lc01554a

Organ-on-a-chip devices advance to market

2017· review· en· W2621842261 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChipOrgan-on-a-chipBusinessEngineeringNanotechnologyTelecommunicationsMaterials scienceMicrofluidics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To curb the high cost of drug development, there is an urgent need to develop more predictive tissue models using human cells to determine drug efficacy and safety in advance of clinical testing. Recent insights gained through fundamental biological studies have validated the importance of dynamic cell environments and cellular communication to the expression of high fidelity organ function. Building on this knowledge, emerging organ-on-a-chip technology is poised to fill the gaps in drug screening by offering predictive human tissue models with methods of sophisticated tissue assembly. Organ-on-a-chip start-ups have begun to spawn from academic research to fill this commercial space and are attracting investment to transform the drug discovery industry. This review traces the history, examines the scientific foundation and envisages the prospect of these renowned organ-on-a-chip technologies. It serves as a guide for new members of this dynamic field to navigate the existing scientific and market space.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.313 · 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