MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280547247 · doi:10.1002/jbm.b.35082

Evaluating the effect of graphene oxide <scp>PEGylation</scp> on the properties of chitosan‐graphene oxide nanocomposite scaffold

2022· article· en· W4280547247 on OpenAlexaff
Haleh Bakhtkhosh Hagh, Larry D. Unsworth, Ali Olad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGraphene and Nanomaterials Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChitosanMaterials sciencePolyethylene glycolGrapheneScaffoldChemical engineeringPEG ratioNanocompositeProtein adsorptionZeta potentialPorosityAdsorptionMesoporous materialOxideCompressive strengthPolymerNanotechnologyComposite materialChemistryBiomedical engineeringNanoparticleOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, graphene oxide (GO) was functionalized with polyethylene glycol (PEG) to understand the effect of PEGlayted GO on properties of chitosan-based nanocomposite scaffold. GO was synthesized according to modified Hummer's method and covalently linked to polymeric chains of PEG to produce polyethylene glycolated GO (PGO). Successful preparation of GO and PGO was confirmed by FT-IR and Raman techniques, where the chemical bonding of PEG and GO nanosheets were concluded based on PGOs' lower zeta potential compared to GO. Nanocomposite scaffolds were prepared by adding equal amounts of GO and PGO into 2% (w/v) chitosan (Cs) solutions. The highly porous scaffolds were developed by lyophilization of solutions. Incorporation of GO and PGO into chitosan scaffold network resulted in uniform and spherical pores. Modified samples offered higher porosity and density, indicating adequate scaffold structure. Improvements in the physical properties of prepared chitosan scaffolds were concluded through higher water absorption and retention values. Compressive strength measurement showed 6.33 and 5.5 times improvement respectively for Cs-GO and Cs-PGO samples compared to Cs scaffold. The Cs-GO scaffolds showed minimum susceptibility toward enzymatic degradation and higher degrees of protein adsorption (26% and 23% improvement in value of adsorbed protein respectively for Cs-GO and Cs-PGO compared to Cs scaffold) and biomineral formation on scaffold surface. Also, Cs-PGO sample showed the highest degree of cell viability and lower hemolysis than both Cs and Cs-GO scaffolds. Investigations showed that cell infiltration into scaffold porous structure was more prominent in Cs-PGO scaffolds than in Cs and Cs-GO scaffolds.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied BiomaterialsSame topicGraphene and Nanomaterials ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207