Biophysical control of plasticity and patterning in regeneration and cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cells and tissues display a remarkable range of plasticity and tissue-patterning activities that are emergent of complex signaling dynamics within their microenvironments. These properties, which when operating normally guide embryogenesis and regeneration, become highly disordered in diseases such as cancer. While morphogens and other molecular factors help determine the shapes of tissues and their patterned cellular organization, the parallel contributions of biophysical control mechanisms must be considered to accurately predict and model important processes such as growth, maturation, injury, repair, and senescence. We now know that mechanical, optical, electric, and electromagnetic signals are integral to cellular plasticity and tissue patterning. Because biophysical modalities underly interactions between cells and their extracellular matrices, including cell cycle, metabolism, migration, and differentiation, their applications as tuning dials for regenerative and anti-cancer therapies are being rapidly exploited. Despite this, the importance of cellular communication through biophysical signaling remains disproportionately underrepresented in the literature. Here, we provide a review of biophysical signaling modalities and known mechanisms that initiate, modulate, or inhibit plasticity and tissue patterning in models of regeneration and cancer. We also discuss current approaches in biomedical engineering that harness biophysical control mechanisms to model, characterize, diagnose, and treat disease states.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".