MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200299180 · doi:10.3390/biomimetics7010005

Egg White Alginate as a Novel Scaffold Biomaterial for 3D Salivary Cell Culturing

2021· article· en· W4200299180 on OpenAlexafffund
Hieu M. Pham, Yuli Zhang, José G. Munguia-López, Simon D. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomimetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Disorders and Functions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEgg Farmers of Canada
KeywordsViability assaySalivaMatrigelSalivary glandCellCell cultureTissue engineeringScaffoldChemistrySpheroidCell biologyBiologyPathologyMedicineBiomedical engineeringBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saliva production by salivary glands play a crucial role in oral health. The loss of salivary gland function could lead to xerostomia, a condition also known as dry mouth. Significant reduction in saliva production could lead to further complications such as difficulty in speech, mastication, and increased susceptibility to dental caries and oral infections and diseases. While some palliative treatments are available for xerostomia, there are no curative treatments to date. This study explores the use of Egg White Alginate (EWA), as an alternative scaffold to Matrigel® for culturing 3D salivary gland cells. A protocol for an optimized EWA was established by comparing cell viability using 1%, 2%, and 3% alginate solution. The normal salivary simian virus 40-immortalized acinar cell (NS-SV-AC) and the submandibular gland-human-1 (SMG-hu-1) cell lines were also used to compare the spheroid formation and cell viability properties of both scaffold biomaterials; cell viability was observed over 10 days using a Live–Dead Cell Assay. Cell viability and spheroid size in 2% EWA was significantly greater than 1% and 3%. It is evident that EWA can support salivary cell survivability as well as form larger spheroids when compared to cells grown in Matrigel®. However, further investigations are necessary as it is unclear if cultured cells were proliferating or aggregating.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomimeticsSame topicSalivary Gland Disorders and FunctionsFrench-language works237,207