Auxetic Cardiac Patches with Tunable Mechanical and Conductive Properties toward Treating Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An auxetic conductive cardiac patch (AuxCP) for the treatment of myocardial infarction (MI) is introduced. The auxetic design gives the patch a negative Poisson's ratio, providing it with the ability to conform to the demanding mechanics of the heart. The conductivity allows the patch to interface with electroresponsive tissues such as the heart. Excimer laser microablation is used to micropattern a re-entrant honeycomb (bow-tie) design into a chitosan-polyaniline composite. It is shown that the bow-tie design can produce patches with a wide range in mechanical strength and anisotropy, which can be tuned to match native heart tissue. Further, the auxetic patches are conductive and cytocompatible with murine neonatal cardiomyocytes in vitro. Ex vivo studies demonstrate that the auxetic patches have no detrimental effect on the electrophysiology of both healthy and MI rat hearts and conform better to native heart movements than unpatterned patches of the same material. Finally, the AuxCP applied in a rat MI model results in no detrimental effect on cardiac function and negligible fibrotic response after two weeks in vivo. This approach represents a versatile and robust platform for cardiac biomaterial design and could therefore lead to a promising treatment for MI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".