<i>In vitro</i>and<i>in vivo</i>degradation of microfiber bioresorbable coronary scaffold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degradation of Mirage Bioresorbable Microfiber Scaffold was evaluated in vitro and in vivo. The degradation in polymer molecular weight (MW), strut morphology, and integrity was accessed using gel permeation chromatography (GPC), X-ray micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) evaluation. To simulate the physiological degradation in vitro, scaffolds were deployed in silicone mock vessels connected to a peristaltic pumping system, which pumps 37°C phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4) at a constant rate. At various time points (30D, 60D, 90D, 180D, 270D, and 360D), the MW of microfibers decreased to 57.3, 49.8, 36.9, 13.9, 6.4, and 5.1% against the baseline. The in vivo degradation study was performed by implanting scaffolds in internal thoracic arteries (ITAs) of mini-swine. At the scheduled sacrifice time points (30D, 90D, 180D, 270D, 360D, and 540D), the implanted ITAs were excised for GPC analysis; the MW of the implanted scaffolds dropped to 58.5, 34.7, 24.8, 16.1, 12.9, and 7.1, respectively. Mass loss of scaffolds reached 72.4% at 540D of implantation. Two stages of hydrolysis were observed in in vitro and in vivo degradation kinetics, and the statistical analysis suggested a positive correlation between in vivo and in vitro degradation. After 6 months of incubation in animals, significant strut degradation was seen in the micro-CT evaluation in all sections as strut fragments and separations. The micro-CT results further confirmed that every sample at 720D had X-ray transmission similar to surrounding tissue, thereby indicating full degradation within 2 years. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 106B: 1842-1850, 2018.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".