MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387633976 · doi:10.1007/s44258-023-00011-1

Recent advances in cancer-on-a-chip tissue models to dissect the tumour microenvironment

2023· article· en· W4387633976 on OpenAlexafffund
Kimberly Seaman, Yu Sun, Lidan You

Bibliographic record

VenueMed-X · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShanghai Jiao Tong University
KeywordsTumor microenvironmentComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)CancerComputational biologyCancer cellChipBiologyNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three-dimensional cancer-on-a-chip tissue models aim to replicate the key hallmarks of the tumour microenvironment and allow for the study of dynamic interactions that occur during tumour progression. Recently, complex cancer-on-a-chip models incorporating multiple cell types and biomimetic extracellular matrices have been developed. These models have generated new research directions in engineering and medicine by allowing for the real-time observation of cancer-host cell interactions in a physiologically relevant microenvironment. However, these cancer-on-a-chip models have yet to overcome limitations including the complexity of device manufacturing, the selection of optimal materials for preclinical drug screening studies, long-term microfluidic cell culture as well as associated challenges, and the technical robustness or difficulty in the use of these microfluidic platforms. In this review, an overview of the tumour microenvironment, its unique characteristics, and the recent advances of cancer-on-a-chip models that recapitulate native features of the tumour microenvironment are presented. The current challenges that cancer-on-a-chip models face and the future directions of research that are expected to be seen are also discussed. Graphical Abstract

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMed-XSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207