MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188592439 · doi:10.1159/000514690

In situ Tissue Regeneration in the Cornea from Bench to Bedside

2021· review· en· W3188592439 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCells Tissues Organs · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCorneaRegeneration (biology)MedicineCorneal epitheliumExtracellular matrixCorneal transplantationStromaRegenerative medicineKeratitisTissue engineeringCorneal DiseasesTransplantationOphthalmologyPathologySurgeryStem cellBiologyBiomedical engineeringCell biologyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corneal blindness accounts for 5.1% of visual deficiency and is the fourth leading cause of blindness globally. An additional 1.5-2 million people develop corneal blindness each year, including many children born with or who later develop corneal infections. Over 90% of corneal blind people globally live in low- and middle-income regions (LMIRs), where corneal ulcers are approximately 10-fold higher compared to high-income countries. While corneal transplantation is an effective option for patients in high-income countries, there is a considerable global shortage of corneal graft tissue and limited corneal transplant programs in many LMIRs. In situ tissue regeneration aims to restore diseases or damaged tissues by inducing organ regeneration. This can be achieved in the cornea using biomaterials based on extracellular matrix (ECM) components like collagen, hyaluronic acid, and silk. Solid corneal implants based on recombinant human collagen type III were successfully implanted into patients resulting in regeneration of the corneal epithelium, stroma, and sub-basal nerve plexus. As ECM crosslinking and manufacturing methods improve, the focus of biomaterial development has shifted to injectable, in situ gelling formulations. Collagen, collagen-mimetic, and gelatin-based in situ gelling formulas have shown the ability to repair corneal wounds, surgical incisions, and perforations in in-vivo models. Biomaterial approaches may not be sufficient to treat inflammatory conditions, so other cell-free therapies such as treatment with tolerogenic exosomes and extracellular vesicles may improve treatment outcomes. Overall, many of the technologies described here show promise as future medical devices or combination products with cell or drug-based therapies. In situ tissue regeneration, particularly with liquid formulas, offers the ability to triage and treat corneal injuries and disease with a single regenerative solution, providing alternatives to organ transplantation and improving patient outcomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.299 · 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