3D Printed Hydrogels for Ocular Wound Healing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corneal disease is one of the most significant causes of blindness around the world. Presently, corneal transplantation is the only way to treat cornea blindness. It should be noted that the amount of cornea that people donate is so much less than that required (1:70). Therefore, scientists have tried to resolve this problem with tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Fabricating cornea with traditional methods is difficult due to their unique properties, such as transparency and geometry. Bioprinting is a technology based on additive manufacturing that can use different biomaterials as bioink for tissue engineering, and the emergence of 3D bioprinting presents a clear possibility to overcome this problem. This new technology requires special materials for printing scaffolds with acceptable biocompatibility. Hydrogels have received significant attention in the past 50 years, and they have been distinguished from other materials because of their unique and outstanding properties. Therefore, hydrogels could be a good bioink for the bioprinting of different scaffolds for corneal tissue engineering. In this review, we discuss the use of different types of hydrogel for bioink for corneal tissue engineering and various methods that have been used for bioprinting. Furthermore, the properties of hydrogels and different types of hydrogels are described.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it