MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394678424 · doi:10.1063/5.0179125

Bridging systems biology and tissue engineering: Unleashing the full potential of complex 3D <i>in vitro</i> tissue models of disease

2024· review· en· W4394678424 on OpenAlexafffund
Jose L. Cadavid, Nancy T. Li, Alison P. McGuigan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiophysics Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaServierGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsReductionismSystems biologyModelling biological systemsComputer scienceBridging (networking)BiologyComputational biologyData scienceBiochemical engineeringManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid advances in tissue engineering have resulted in more complex and physiologically relevant 3D in vitro tissue models with applications in fundamental biology and therapeutic development. However, the complexity provided by these models is often not leveraged fully due to the reductionist methods used to analyze them. Computational and mathematical models developed in the field of systems biology can address this issue. Yet, traditional systems biology has been mostly applied to simpler in vitro models with little physiological relevance and limited cellular complexity. Therefore, integrating these two inherently interdisciplinary fields can result in new insights and move both disciplines forward. In this review, we provide a systematic overview of how systems biology has been integrated with 3D in vitro tissue models and discuss key application areas where the synergies between both fields have led to important advances with potential translational impact. We then outline key directions for future research and discuss a framework for further integration between 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.347
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiophysics ReviewsSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207