Delivering More of an Injectable Human Recombinant Collagen III Hydrogel Does Not Improve Its Therapeutic Efficacy for Treating Myocardial Infarction
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
Injectable hydrogels are a promising method to enhance repair in the heart after myocardial infarction (MI). However, few studies have compared different strategies for the application of biomaterial treatments. In this study, we use a clinically relevant mouse MI model to assess the therapeutic efficacy of different treatment protocols for intramyocardial injection of a recombinant human collagen III (rHCIII) thermoresponsive hydrogel. Comparing a single hydrogel injection at an early time point (3 h) versus injections at multiple time points (3 h, 1 week, and 2 weeks) post-MI revealed that the single injection group led to superior cardiac function, reduced scar size and inflammation, and increased vascularization. Omitting the 3 h time point and delivering the hydrogel at 1 and 2 weeks post-MI led to poorer cardiac function. The positive effects of the single time point injection (3 h) on scar size and vascular density were lost when the hydrogel's collagen concentration was increased from 1% to 2%, and it did not confer any additional functional improvement. This study shows that early treatment with a rHCIII hydrogel can improve cardiac function post-MI but that injecting more rHCIII (by increased concentration or more over time) can reduce its efficacy, thus highlighting the importance of investigating optimal treatment strategies of biomaterial therapy for MI.
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 | 0.000 | 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