MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247472758 · doi:10.3410/f.737421630.793571880

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Functional angiogenesis requires microenvironmental cues balancing endothelial cell migration and proliferation.

2020· dataset· en· W4247472758 on OpenAlexaff
Milica Radisic, Yimu Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiogenesisExtracellular matrixCell biologyMulticellular organismSprouting angiogenesisEndothelial stem cellBiologyCell migrationNeovascularizationCellImmunologyCancer researchIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angiogenesis is a complex morphogenetic process that involves intimate interactions between multicellular endothelial structures and their extracellular milieu. In vitro models of angiogenesis can aid in reducing the complexity of the in vivo microenvironment and provide mechanistic insight into how soluble and physical extracellular matrix cues regulate this process. To investigate how microenvironmental cues regulate angiogenesis and the function of resulting microvasculature, we multiplexed an established angiogenesis-on-a-chip platform that affords higher throughput investigation of 3D endothelial cell sprouting emanating from a parent vessel through defined biochemical gradients and extracellular matrix. We found that two fundamental endothelial cell functions, migration and proliferation, dictate endothelial cell invasion as single cells vs. multicellular sprouts. Microenvironmental cues that elicit excessive migration speed incommensurate with proliferation resulted in microvasculature with poor barrier function and an inability to transport fluid across the microvascular bed. Restoring the balance between migration speed and proliferation rate rescued multicellular sprout invasion, providing a new framework for the design of pro-angiogenic biomaterials that guide functional microvasculature formation for regenerative therapies. PMID: 32100769 Funding information This work was supported by: National Science Foundation, International Grant ID: DGE1256260 NHLBI NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R00 HL124322 NHLBI NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: K99 HL124322

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.061

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207