MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118388285 · doi:10.1039/d0lc01040e

Cardiovascular microphysiological systems (CVMPS) for safety studies – a pharma perspective

2021· article· en· W3118388285 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Pointon, Jonathan Maher, Myrtle Davis, Thomas K. Baker, Joseph A. Cichocki, Diane Ramsden, Christopher M. Hale, Kyle L. Kolaja, Paul Lévesque, Radhakrishna Sura, David M. Stresser, Gary A. Gintant

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integrative responses of the cardiovascular (CV) system are essential for maintaining blood flow to provide oxygenation, nutrients, and waste removal for the entire body. Progress has been made in independently developing simple in vitro models of two primary components of the CV system, namely the heart (using induced pluripotent stem-cell derived cardiomyocytes) and the vasculature (using endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells). These two in vitro biomimics are often described as immature and simplistic, and typically lack the structural complexity of native tissues. Despite these limitations, they have proven useful for specific "fit for purpose" applications, including early safety screening. More complex in vitro models offer the tantalizing prospect of greater refinement in risk assessments. To this end, efforts to physically link cardiac and vascular components to mimic a true CV microphysiological system (CVMPS) are ongoing, with the goal of providing a more holistic and integrated CV response model. The challenges of building and implementing CVMPS in future pharmacological safety studies are many, and include a) the need for more complex (and hence mature) cell types and tissues, b) the need for more realistic vasculature (within and across co-modeled tissues), and c) the need to meaningfully couple these two components to allow for integrated CV responses. Initial success will likely come with simple, bioengineered tissue models coupled with fluidics intended to mirror a vascular component. While the development of more complex integrated CVMPS models that are capable of differentiating safe compounds and providing mechanistic evaluations of CV liabilities may be feasible, adoption by pharma will ultimately hinge on model efficiency, experimental reproducibility, and added value above current strategies.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207