MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889431912 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-31502-6

Tissue-engineered 3D melanoma model with blood and lymphatic capillaries for drug development

2018· article· en· W2889431912 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Bourland, Julie Fradette, François A. Auger

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMelanomaLymphatic systemExtracellular matrixCancer researchMedicinePathologyMatrigelHuman skinTumor microenvironmentBiologyAngiogenesisCell biologyTumor cells

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While being the rarest skin cancer, melanoma is also the deadliest. To further drug discovery and improve clinical translation, new human cell-based in vitro models are needed. Our work strives to mimic the melanoma microenvironment in vitro as an alternative to animal testing. We used the self-assembly method to produce a 3D human melanoma model exempt of exogenous biomaterial. This model is based on primary human skin cells and melanoma cell lines while including a key feature for tumor progression: blood and lymphatic capillaries. Major components of the tumor microenvironment such as capillaries, human extracellular matrix, a stratified epidermis (involucrin, filaggrin) and basement membrane (laminin 332) are recapitulated in vitro. We demonstrate the persistence of CD31+ blood and podoplanin+/LYVE-1+ lymphatic capillaries in the engineered tissue. Chronic treatment with vemurafenib was applied to the model and elicited a dose-dependent response on proliferation and apoptosis, making it a promising tool to test new compounds in a human-like environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207