Exploring the Use of Animal Models in Craniofacial Regenerative Medicine: A Narrative Review
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
The craniofacial region contains skin, bones, cartilage, the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), teeth, periodontal tissues, mucosa, salivary glands, muscles, nerves, and blood vessels. Applying tissue engineering therapeutically helps replace lost tissues after trauma or cancer. Despite recent advances, it remains essential to standardize and validate the most appropriate animal models to effectively translate preclinical data to clinical situations. Therefore, this review focused on applying various animal models in craniofacial tissue engineering and regeneration. This research was based on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar data available until January 2023. This study included only English-language publications describing animal models' application in craniofacial tissue engineering ( in vivo and review studies). Study selection was based on evaluating titles, abstracts, and full texts. The total number of initial studies was 6454. Following the screening process, 295 articles remained on the final list. Numerous in vivo studies have shown that small and large animal models can benefit clinical conditions by assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic interventions, devices, and biomaterials in animals with similar diseases/defects to humans. Different species' anatomical, physiologic, and biological features must be considered in developing innovative, reproducible, and discriminative experimental models to select an appropriate animal model for a specific tissue defect. As a result, understanding the parallels between human and veterinary medicine can benefit both fields.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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