Cell Migration Assays and Their Application to Wound Healing Assays—A Critical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, cell migration assays (CMAs) have emerged as a tool to study the migration of cells along with their physiological responses under various stimuli, including both mechanical and bio-chemical properties. CMAs are a generic system in that they support various biological applications, such as wound healing assays. In this paper, we review the development of the CMA in the context of its application to wound healing assays. As such, the wound healing assay will be used to derive the requirements on CMAs. This paper will provide a comprehensive and critical review of the development of CMAs along with their application to wound healing assays. One salient feature of our methodology in this paper is the application of the so-called design thinking; namely we define the requirements of CMAs first and then take them as a benchmark for various developments of CMAs in the literature. The state-of-the-art CMAs are compared with this benchmark to derive the knowledge and technological gap with CMAs in the literature. We will also discuss future research directions for the CMA together with its application to wound healing 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".