Biomimetic Layer-by-Layer Self-Assembly of Nanofilms, Nanocoatings, and 3D Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving surface design and control of biomaterial scaffolds with nanometer- or micrometer-scaled functional films is critical to mimic the unique features of native extracellular matrices, which has significant technological implications for tissue engineering including cell-seeded scaffolds, microbioreactors, cell assembly, tissue regeneration, etc. Compared with other techniques available for surface design, layer-by-layer (LbL) self-assembly technology has attracted extensive attention because of its integrated features of simplicity, versatility, and nanoscale control. Here we present a brief overview of current state-of-the-art research related to the LbL self-assembly technique and its assembled biomaterials as scaffolds for tissue engineering. An overview of the LbL self-assembly technique, with a focus on issues associated with distinct routes and driving forces of self-assembly, is described briefly. Then, we highlight the controllable fabrication, properties, and applications of LbL self-assembly biomaterials in the forms of multilayer nanofilms, scaffold nanocoatings, and three-dimensional scaffolds to systematically demonstrate advances in LbL self-assembly in the field of tissue engineering. LbL self-assembly not only provides advances for molecular deposition but also opens avenues for the design and development of innovative biomaterials for tissue engineering.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it