MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295846963 · doi:10.3390/ijms231810519

Prospects and Challenges of Electrospun Cell and Drug Delivery Vehicles to Correct Urethral Stricture

2022· review· en· W4295846963 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Farzamfar, Elissa Elia, Stéphane Chabaud, Mohammad Naji, Stéphane Bolduc

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrug deliveryTherapeutic modalitiesElectrospinningUrethral strictureTissue engineeringNanotechnologyBiomedical engineeringMedicineSurgeryChemistryMaterials scienceUrethra

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current therapeutic modalities to treat urethral strictures are associated with several challenges and shortcomings. Therefore, significant strides have been made to develop strategies with minimal side effects and the highest therapeutic potential. In this framework, electrospun scaffolds incorporated with various cells or bioactive agents have provided promising vistas to repair urethral defects. Due to the biomimetic nature of these constructs, they can efficiently mimic the native cells' niches and provide essential microenvironmental cues for the safe transplantation of multiple cell types. Furthermore, these scaffolds are versatile platforms for delivering various drug molecules, growth factors, and nucleic acids. This review discusses the recent progress, applications, and challenges of electrospun scaffolds to deliver cells or bioactive agents during the urethral defect repair process. First, the current status of electrospinning in urethral tissue engineering is presented. Then, the principles of electrospinning in drug and cell delivery applications are reviewed. Finally, the recent preclinical studies are summarized and the current challenges 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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207