Multipurpose On‐the‐Spot Peptide‐Based Hydrogels for Skin, Cornea, and Heart Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bioinspired synthetic materials can be designed as reliable, cost‐effective, and fully controlled alternatives to natural biomaterials for treating damaged tissues and organs. However, several hurdles need to be overcome for clinical translation, particularly for biomaterials gelled in situ. These include the potential toxicity of chemical crosslinkers used in the materials' assembly or breakdown products they generate and the challenges of fine‐tuning the mechanical properties of the materials. Here, a minimalistic, adhesive soft material is developed by screening hundreds of potential formulations of self‐assembling, custom‐designed collagen‐like peptide sequences for the in situ formation of tissue‐bonding 3D hydrogels. Nine promising formulations for tissue repair are identified using a low‐volume and rapid combinatory screening approach. It is shown that simply varying the ratio of the two key components promotes adhesion and fine‐tunes the material's mechanical properties. The materials' skin and heart repair capabilities are assessed in vitro and clinically relevant animal models. The materials are also tested for corneal applications using ex vivo pig cornea models complemented by in vitro cell compatibility assays.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".