<scp>Two‐step</scp> sedimentation process for selection of microcapsules containing cell aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microencapsulation technologies are being developed to protect transplanted islets from immune rejection, to reduce or even eliminate the need for immunosuppression. However, unencapsulated cells increase the chances of rejection and empty beads increase transplant volumes. Thus, separation processes were investigated to remove these byproducts based on density differences. The densities of islet-sized mouse insulinoma 6 (MIN6) cell aggregates and acellular 5% alginate beads generated via emulsification and internal gelation were ~ 1.065 and 1.042 g/ml, respectively. The separation of empty beads from those containing aggregates was performed by sedimentation under unit gravity in continuous gradients of polysucrose and sodium diatrizoate with density ranges of 1.032-1.045, 1.035-1.044, or 1.039-1.042 g/ml. The 1.039-1.042 g/ml gradient enabled recoveries of ~ 80% of the aggregate-containing beads while the other gradients recovered only ~ 60%. The bottom fraction of the 1.039-1.042 g/ml gradient contained beads with ~ 6% of their volume occupied by cell aggregates. Separation of unencapsulated aggregates from the aggregate-containing beads was then achieved by centrifugation of this purified fraction in a 1.055 g/ml density solution. Thus, these sedimentation-based approaches can effectively remove the byproducts of cell encapsulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".