MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097461454 · doi:10.1039/d0tb01842b

Design of hydrogel-based scaffolds for the treatment of spinal cord injuries

2020· review· en· W3097461454 on OpenAlexafffund
Nazanin Ghane, Mohammad‐Hossein Beigi, Sheyda Labbaf, Amirkianoosh Kiani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Chemistry B · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScaffoldSpinal cordSpinal cord injuryBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a traumatic lesion that diminishes sensory and/or motor neuronal functionality, directly affecting the quality of the patient's life. Due to the central nervous system's (CNS) inhibitory microenvironment that presents challenges in neuron repair and regeneration, tissue engineering strategies have received significant attention to improve the quality of a patient's life. In this regard, hydrogels are attractive SC scaffolds as they can provide not only an adjustable physiologically native-like microenvironment but also an appropriate matrix for cell delivery, drug delivery, and other bioactive molecule delivery at the lesion site. This systematic review characterizes the widely used biomaterials including natural polymers; protein- and polysaccharide-based synthetic polymers; methacrylate- and polyethylene glycol-based, and self-assembling (SA) peptides. In addition, synthesis routes of hydrogels are investigated. This review is complemented by the discussion of the various techniques utilized for hydrogel scaffold designs with their in vitro and in vivo outcomes and clinical trials. The existing challenges and opportunities for SC hydrogel scaffolds are mentioned towards the end of this review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations65
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Chemistry BSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207