MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738039684 · doi:10.1039/c7tb01221g

Bioactive glasses in wound healing: hope or hype?

2017· article· en· W2738039684 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

VenueJournal of Materials Chemistry B · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWound healingMaterials scienceNanotechnologyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(mol%)] have been implicated in the stages of wound healing due to their ability to release ions that can stimulate processes, such as haemostasis, antibacterial efficacy, epithelial cell migration, angiogenesis, and fibroblastic cell proliferation, amongst others. More recently, a wound dressing composed of a borate-based glass received regulatory approval for use in the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. However, to date, there are no comprehensive reports on their specific mechanism of action in accelerating the wound healing processes. In this highlight, we will provide a brief overview of the wound healing stages, review the bioactive glass formulations that have been investigated for potential applications in wound healing and attempt to summarize the consensus on why these glasses may be successful in wound healing.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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