Global trends in clinical trials involving engineered biomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineered biomaterials are materials specifically designed to interact with biological systems for biomedical applications. This paper offers the comprehensive analysis of global clinical trial trends involving such materials. We surveyed 834 studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database and explored biomaterial types, their initiation points, and durations in clinical trials. Predominantly, synthetic and natural polymers, particularly silicone and collagen, are used. Trials, focusing on ophthalmology, dentistry, and vascular medicine, are primarily conducted in the United States, Canada, and Italy. These trials encompass a broad demographic, and trials enrolled fewer than 100 participants. The study duration varied ranging from 0.5 to 4.5 years. These biomaterials are mainly bioresorbable or bioinert, with the integration of cells in biomaterials remaining an underexplored area. Our findings shed light on current practices and future potentials of engineered biomaterials in clinical research, offering insights for advancing this dynamic field globally.
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 | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".