Controlling Differentiation of Stem Cells for Developing Personalized Organ‐on‐Chip Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organ-on-chip (OOC) platforms have attracted attentions of pharmaceutical companies as powerful tools for screening of existing drugs and development of new drug candidates. OOCs have primarily used human cell lines or primary cells to develop biomimetic tissue models. However, the ability of human stem cells in unlimited self-renewal and differentiation into multiple lineages has made them attractive for OOCs. The microfluidic technology has enabled precise control of stem cell differentiation using soluble factors, biophysical cues, and electromagnetic signals. This study discusses different tissue- and organ-on-chip platforms (i.e., skin, brain, blood-brain barrier, bone marrow, heart, liver, lung, tumor, and vascular), with an emphasis on the critical role of stem cells in the synthesis of complex tissues. This study further recaps the design, fabrication, high-throughput performance, and improved functionality of stem-cell-based OOCs, technical challenges, obstacles against implementing their potential applications, and future perspectives related to different experimental platforms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".