Going below and beyond the surface: Microneedle structure, materials, drugs, fabrication, and applications for wound healing and tissue regeneration
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
Microneedle, as a novel drug delivery system, has attracted widespread attention due to its non-invasiveness, painless and simple administration, controllable drug delivery, and diverse cargo loading capacity. Although microneedles are initially designed to penetrate stratum corneum of skin for transdermal drug delivery, they, recently, have been used to promote wound healing and regeneration of diverse tissues and organs and the results are promising. Despite there are reviews about microneedles, few of them focus on wound healing and tissue regeneration. Here, we review the recent advances of microneedles in this field. We first give an overview of microneedle system in terms of its potential cargos (e.g., small molecules, macromolecules, nucleic acids, nanoparticles, extracellular vesicle, cells), structural designs (e.g., multidrug structures, adhesive structures), material selection, and drug release mechanisms. Then we briefly summarize different microneedle fabrication methods, including their advantages and limitations. We finally summarize the recent progress of microneedle-assisted wound healing and tissue regeneration (e.g., skin, cardiac, bone, tendon, ocular, vascular, oral, hair, spinal cord, and uterine tissues). We expect that our article would serve as a guideline for readers to design their microneedle systems according to different applications, including material selection, drug selection, and structure design, for achieving better healing and regeneration efficacy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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