MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388111461 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.37633

Advances in cardiac tissue engineering and heart‐on‐a‐chip

2023· review· en· W4388111461 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Kieda, Amid Shakeri, Shira Landau, Erika Yan Wang, Yimu Zhao, Sargol Okhovatian, Ying Wang, Richard Jiang, Milica Radisic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteKillam TrustsCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsTissue engineeringOrgan-on-a-chipInduced pluripotent stem cellCardiac cellBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceBiomaterialNanotechnologyNeuroscienceEngineeringMicrofluidicsBiologyMaterials scienceCell biologyEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in both cardiac tissue engineering and hearts-on-a-chip are grounded in new biomaterial development as well as the employment of innovative fabrication techniques that enable precise control of the mechanical, electrical, and structural properties of the cardiac tissues being modelled. The elongated structure of cardiomyocytes requires tuning of substrate properties and application of biophysical stimuli to drive its mature phenotype. Landmark advances have already been achieved with induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiac patches that advanced to human testing. Heart-on-a-chip platforms are now commonly used by a number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Here, we provide an overview of cardiac physiology in order to better define the requirements for functional tissue recapitulation. We then discuss the biomaterials most commonly used in both cardiac tissue engineering and heart-on-a-chip, followed by the discussion of recent representative studies in both fields. We outline significant challenges common to both fields, specifically: scalable tissue fabrication and platform standardization, improving cellular fidelity through effective tissue vascularization, achieving adult tissue maturation, and ultimately developing cryopreservation protocols so that the tissues are available off the shelf.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

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

Citations43
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207