MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091550837 · doi:10.1080/17460441.2020.1822815

Disentangling the fibrous microenvironment: designer culture models for improved drug discovery

2020· review· en· W3091550837 on OpenAlexafffund
Carley Ort, Wontae Lee, Nikita Kalashnikov, Christopher Moraes

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Discovery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsDrug discoveryFunction (biology)Computer science3D cell culturePipeline (software)Computational biologyBiochemical engineeringBiologyBioinformaticsCell cultureEngineeringCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Standard high-throughput screening (HTS) assays rarely identify clinically viable 'hits', likely because cells do not experience physiologically realistic culture conditions. The biophysical nature of the extracellular matrix has emerged as a critical driver of cell function and response and recreating these factors could be critically important in streamlining the drug discovery pipeline. AREAS COVERED: The authors review recent design strategies to understand and manipulate biophysical features of three-dimensional fibrous tissues. The effects of architectural parameters of the extracellular matrix and their resulting mechanical behaviors are deconstructed; and their individual and combined impact on cell behavior is examined. The authors then illustrate the potential impact of these physical features on designing next-generation platforms to identify drugs effective against breast cancer. EXPERT OPINION: Progression toward increased culture complexity must be balanced against the demanding technical requirements for high-throughput screening; and strategies to identify the minimal set of microenvironmental parameters needed to recreate disease-relevant responses must be specifically tailored to the disease stage and organ system being studied. Although challenging, this can be achieved through integrative and multidisciplinary technologies that span microfabrication, cell biology, and tissue engineering.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug DiscoverySame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207