MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158546673 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe7204

Combinatorial screen of dynamic mechanical stimuli for predictive control of MSC mechano-responsiveness

2021· article· en· W3158546673 on OpenAlexafffund
Haijiao Liu, Jenna Usprech, Prabu Karthick Parameshwar, Yu Sun, Craig A. Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMesenchymal stem cellComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceCell biologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanobiological-based control of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to facilitate engineering and regeneration of load-bearing tissues requires systematic investigations of specific dynamic mechanical stimulation protocols. Using deformable membrane microdevice arrays paired with combinatorial experimental design and modeling, we probed the individual and integrative effects of mechanical stimulation parameters (strain magnitude, rate at which strain is changed, and duty period) on myofibrogenesis and matrix production of MSCs in three-dimensional hydrogels. These functions were found to be dominantly influenced by a previously unidentified, higher-order interactive effect between strain magnitude and duty period. Empirical models based on our combinatorial cue-response data predicted an optimal loading regime in which strain magnitude and duty period were increased synchronously over time, which was validated to most effectively promote MSC matrix production. These findings inform the design of loading regimes for MSC-based engineered tissues and validate a broadly applicable approach to probe multifactorial regulating effects of mechanobiological cues.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207