MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155994151 · doi:10.1002/mabi.202100085

In Vivo Degradation Mechanisms of Aliphatic Polycarbonates and Functionalized Aliphatic Polycarbonates

2021· review· en· W3155994151 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Bioscience · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
Topicbiodegradable polymer synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomaterialPolyesterPolymerChemistryIn vivoDegradation (telecommunications)Drug deliveryPolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aliphatic polycarbonates (APCs) have been studied for decades but have not been as utilized as aliphatic polyesters in biomaterial applications such as drug delivery and tissue engineering. With the recognition that functionalized aliphatic polymers can be readily synthesized, increased attention is being paid to these materials. A frequently provided reason for utilizing these polymers is that they degrade to form diols and carbon dioxide. However, depending on the structure and molecular weight of the APC, degradation may not occur. In this review, the mechanisms by which APCs and functionalized APCs have been found to degrade in vivo are examined with the objective of providing guidance in the continued development of these polymers as biomaterials.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · 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