MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206055083 · doi:10.1002/jmri.28057

Three‐Dimensional Bioprinted <scp>MR‐Trackable</scp> Regenerative Scaffold for <scp>Postimplantation</scp> Monitoring on <scp>T1‐Weighted MRI</scp>

2022· article· en· W4206055083 on OpenAlexafffund
Sadi Loai, Daniel A. Szulc, Hai‐Ling Margaret Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsIn vivoScaffoldViability assayBiomedical engineeringChemistryIn vitroRegeneration (biology)Cell biologyMedicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A three‐dimensional (3D) bioprinted tissue scaffold is a promising therapeutic that goes beyond providing physical support for tissue regeneration by enabling precise spatial control over scaffold geometry and integration of different materials/cells. Critically important is in vivo confirmation of correct scaffold placement and retention during the initial 24 hours postimplantation, to detect unwanted implant migration. Purpose To incorporate a safe, efficient MR contrast agent into a bioprinting workflow, and to achieve bright‐contrast scaffold monitoring in vivo postimplantation. Study Type In vitro and animal in vivo longitudinal study. Animal Model Two female Sprague Dawley rats (~200 g) for labeled and unlabeled scaffold implantation in the subcutaneous dorsal space flanking the vertebral column. Field Strength/Sequence A 7.0 T/T1‐weighted spin echo (SE) sequence and T1 mapping using turbo SE with variable repetition times (TRs). Assessment Cell viability and proliferation were assessed over 2 weeks after labeling bioprinted gelatin/alginate scaffolds with MnPNH2 (0.5 mM, 24 hours). In vitro MRI was performed 0, 12, and 24 hours postlabeling in nine labeled and three unlabeled (control) scaffolds to monitor T1 evolution. In vivo MRI was performed immediately and 24 hours postimplantation to assess T1. Acute inflammation near surgical site was monitored in one rat to 3 days. Statistical Tests One‐way analysis of variance with Tukey–Kramer post hoc analysis (P < 0.01). Results Cell viability was unaffected by bioprinting/labeling: viability exceeded 90% in all scaffolds after 1 week. In vitro T1's were significantly lower in labeled scaffolds compared to control (207 msec vs. 2257 msec) immediately postlabeling and 24 hours later (1227 msec vs. 2257 msec). In vivo T1's were significantly different (243.6 msec vs. 2414.6 msec) immediately postimplantation, and no differences emerged compared to respective in vitro control/labeled counterparts. The 24‐hours imaging and gross pathology confirmed migration of scaffolds beyond the imaging field. Data Conclusion We report an MR‐detectable, cell‐compatible bioprinted scaffold, utilizing a T1‐weighting contrast agent for high‐resolution, postimplantation scaffold tracking. Evidence Level 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 1

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 score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207