MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309032742 · doi:10.3390/jfb13040240

Preparation and Use of Decellularized Extracellular Matrix for Tissue Engineering

2022· review· en· W4309032742 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam D. McInnes, Mike Moser, Daniel Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Functional Biomaterials · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDecellularizationTissue engineeringRegenerative medicineScaffoldExtracellular matrixRegeneration (biology)Materials scienceNanotechnologyBiomedical engineeringEngineering ethicsCell biologyStem cellEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multidisciplinary fields of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine have the potential to revolutionize the practise of medicine through the abilities to repair, regenerate, or replace tissues and organs with functional engineered constructs. To this end, tissue engineering combines scaffolding materials with cells and biologically active molecules into constructs with the appropriate structures and properties for tissue/organ regeneration, where scaffolding materials and biomolecules are the keys to mimic the native extracellular matrix (ECM). For this, one emerging way is to decellularize the native ECM into the materials suitable for, directly or in combination with other materials, creating functional constructs. Over the past decade, decellularized ECM (or dECM) has greatly facilitated the advance of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, while being challenged in many ways. This article reviews the recent development of dECM for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, with a focus on the preparation of dECM along with its influence on cell culture, the modification of dECM for use as a scaffolding material, and the novel techniques and emerging trends in processing dECM into functional constructs. We highlight the success of dECM and constructs in the in vitro, in vivo, and clinical applications and further identify the key issues and challenges involved, along with a discussion of future research directions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.358
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
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

Citations132
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Functional BiomaterialsSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207