Biofabrication and preclinical evaluation of a large-sized human self-assembled skin substitute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Severe skin burns are widely treated using split-thickness skin autografts. However, the accessibility of the donor site may be limited depending on the size of the injured surface. As an alternative to skin autografts, our laboratory is clinically investigating a model of human self-assembled skin substitute (SASS) with a standard size of 35 cm 2 . For the management of extensive skin wounds, multiple grafts are required to cover the entire wound bed. Even if SASSs could provide an adequate and efficient treatment, in some cases, the long-term follow-up of the skin graft site reveals the appearance of marks at the junction between SASSs. This study aims to produce a large-sized self-assembled skin substitute (L-SASS; 289 cm 2 ) and evaluate its preclinical potential for skin wound coverage. The L-SASSs and SASSs shared similar contraction behavior on an agar surface, thickness, and epidermal differentiation in vitro . After grafting, similar histological results were obtained for skin substitutes produced with both methods. Hence, the self-assembly approach of tissue engineering is a scaffold-free method that allows the production of living skin substitutes in a large format.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".