Aspects of the alternative host response to methacrylic acid containing biomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methacrylic acid (MAA)-based biomaterials promote a vascularized host response without the addition of exogenous factors such as cells or growth factors. We presume that materials containing MAA favor an alternative foreign body response, rather than the conventional fibrotic response. Here, we characterize selected aspects of the response to two different forms of MAA-a coating, which can be used to prevascularize the subcutaneous tissue for subsequent therapeutic cell delivery or an injectable hydrogel, which can be used to vascularize and deliver cells simultaneously. We show that the MAA-coating quickly vascularized the subcutaneous space compared to an uncoated silicone tube, and after 14 days of prevascularization, the tissue surrounding the MAA-coated tube presented fewer immune cells than the uncoated control. We also compared the host response to a MAA-PEG (polyethylene glycol) hydrogel at day 1, with pancreatic islets in immune-compromised SCID/bg mice and immune-competent Balb/c mice. The Balb/c mouse presented a more inflammatory response with increased IFN-γ production as compared to the SCID/bg. Together with previously published data, this work contributes to a further understanding of tissue responses to a biomaterial in different forms as used for cell delivery.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".