Tissue and organ decellularization in regenerative medicine
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
The advancement and improvement in decellularization methods can be attributed to the increasing demand for tissues and organs for transplantation. Decellularized tissues and organs, which are free of cells and genetic materials while retaining the complex ultrastructure of the extracellular matrix (ECM), can serve as scaffolds to subsequently embed cells for transplantation. They have the potential to mimic the native physiology of the targeted anatomic site. ECM from different tissues and organs harvested from various sources have been applied. Many techniques are currently involved in the decellularization process, which come along with their own advantages and disadvantages. This review focuses on recent developments in decellularization methods, the importance and nature of detergents used for decellularization, as well as on the role of the ECM either as merely a physical support or as a scaffold in retaining and providing cues for cell survival, differentiation and homeostasis. In addition, application, status, and perspectives on commercialization of bioproducts derived from decellularized tissues and organs are addressed. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 34:1494-1505, 2018.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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