Critical Issues in Successful Production of Skin Substitutes for Wound Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel findings on fabrication techniques for bioactive materials, discovering further basic knowledge about wound healing process, and availability of stem cells as alternative candidate for differentiated cells have highly encouraged scientists for developing new bioengineered skin substitutes (BSS) that offer an effective remedy for a specific wound type. However, technical, clinical, legislative and economic reasons hamper wide-spread commercialization and clinical translation of BSS. Among the various types of strategies that target skin repair and regeneration, tissue engineering with stem cells is most promising route. Tissue engineering by cooperation of several disciplines forms a context on which the commercial development of BSS is possible to provide benefits for patients who currently have limited or no cure options. The principles of tissue engineering are to initiate cell cultures in vitro, grow them in monolayer or on porous scaffolds and transplant the composite into a patient with a specific wound indication in vivo. The potential for creating of custom-designed biomaterials and availability of stem cells from either autologous or allogenic sources have helped to produce novel innovative BSS. Currently, wide range of skin substitutes are already being fabricated for clinical use in different wound indications but not yet definitively established. Therefore, many novel engineered constructs might be fabricated in the future. In this review, we describe the progress that has been made to date in the field of skin substitutes and the critical issues that are still hindering successful production and bench to bedside translation of BSS and restricting the availability of these innovative therapeutic constructs. Integrity of the science and technology, interdisciplinary expertise collaborations, and early interaction with regulatory entities such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), together with other critical determinants, is vital to the successful commercialization of tissue engineering products into the marketplace/clinic.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".