Engineered microenvironment for the study of myofibroblast mechanobiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myofibroblasts are mechanosensitive cells and a variety of their behaviours including differentiation, migration, force production and biosynthesis are regulated by the surrounding microenvironment. Engineered cell culture models have been developed to examine the effect of microenvironmental factors such as the substrate stiffness, the topography and strain of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and the shear stress on myofibroblast biology. These engineered models provide well-mimicked, pathophysiologically relevant experimental conditions that are superior to those enabled by the conventional two-dimensional (2D) culture models. In this perspective, we will review the recent advances in the development of engineered cell culture models for myofibroblasts and outline the findings on the myofibroblast mechanobiology under various microenvironmental conditions. These studies have demonstrated the power and utility of the engineered models for the study of microenvironment-regulated cellular behaviours. The findings derived using these models contribute to a greater understanding of how myofibroblast behaviour is regulated in tissue repair and pathological scar formation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".