MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256043675 · doi:10.18494/sam.2015.1136

Organ-on-a-Chip Platforms for Drug Delivery and Cell Characterization: A Review

2015· review· en· W4256043675 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors and Materials · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Ulsan
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)ChipDrugDrug deliveryComputer scienceNanotechnologyEmbedded systemMaterials sciencePharmacologyMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developments in micro-and nanofluidic technologies have led to new kinds of cell culture and screening systems that are collectively termed organ-on-a-chip systems. Organ-on-a-chip systems are in vitro microfabricated devices that mimic dynamic interactions of in vivo microenvironments. In addition to existing two-dimensional and three-dimensional tissues, organ-on-a-chip systems can mimic the biomechanical and biochemical microenvironments of in vivo tissues as well as the interactional effects of the microenvironments on cell and tissue functions. Owing to those features, organ-ona-chip systems have become excellent platforms for drug screening and delivery tests. In this review, specific examples of organ-on-a-chip devices and their applications in tissue engineering and drug delivery tests are presented. The utility and performance of stateof-the-art organ-on-a-chip systems, including lung-on-a-chip, heart-on-a-chip, vessel-ona-chip, liver-on-a-chip, and tumor-on-a-chip, are also covered in this review. Limitations of conventional systems, basic fabrication processes for organ-on-a-chip devices, and future prospects of organ-on-a-chip systems are discussed.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.230 · 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