Development of an Asymmetric Hydrophobic/Hydrophilic Ultrathin Graphene Oxide Membrane as Actuator and Conformable Patch for Heart Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A conductive engineered cardiac patch (ECP) can reconstruct the biomimetic regenerative microenvironment of an infarcted myocardium. Direct ink writing (DIW) and 3D printing can produce an ECP with precisely controlled microarchitectures. However, developing a printed ECP with high conductivity and flexibility for gapless attachment to conform to epicardial geometry remains a challenge. Herein, an asymmetrical DIW hydrophobic/hydrophilic membrane using heat‐processed graphene oxide (GO) ink is developed. The “Masked spin coating” method is also developed that leads to a microscale GO (hydrophilic)/reduced GO (rGO, hydrophobic) physiological sensor, as well as a macroscale moisture‐driven GO/rGO actuator. Depositing mussel‐inspired polydopamine (PDA) coating on the one side of the DIW rGO , the ultrathin (approximately 500 nm) PDA‐rGO (hydrophilic)/rGO (hydrophobic) microlattice (DrGOM) ECP is bestowed with the flexibility and moisture‐responsive actuation that allows gapless attachment to the curved surface of the epicardium. Conformable DrGOM exhibits a promising therapeutic effect on rats' infarcted hearts through conductive microenvironment reconstruction and improved neovascularization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".