Experimental datasets on processed eggshell membrane powder for wound healing
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
Eggshell (ES) and eggshell membrane (ESM) is a significant byproduct of the egg producing industry (Ahmed et al., 2019). Many studies have been undertaken to utilize ES waste for potential value added applications (Cordeiro and Hincke, 2011). Described here are the datasets from our evaluation of processed eggshell membrane powder (PEP) as a wound healing product using the mouse excisional wound splinting model (Ahmed et al., 2019). PEP biomaterial was characterized by proteomics using various extraction and solubilization strategies including moderate (lithium dodecyl sulphate (LDS) and urea/ammonium bicarbonate) and harsh conditions (3-mercaptopropionic acid (3-MPA) and NaOH/dimethylsulfoxide) in order to progressively overcome its stable, insoluble nature (Ahmed et al., 2019, Ahmed et al., 2017). Analysis of proteomic data allowed the relative abundance of the main PEP protein constituents to be determined. The efficacy of PEP for promotion of wound healing was assessed using the mouse excisional wound splinting model, and well-established semi-quantitative histological scoring. (More details about the PEP biomaterial characterization and its in vivo evaluation can be found in the related research article (Ahmed et al., 2019)).
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) | 0.000 | 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 it