Cardiac Tissue Engineering: A Journey from Scaffold Fabrication to In Vitro Characterization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac tissue engineering has been rapidly evolving with diverse applications, ranging from the repair of fibrotic tissue caused by "adverse remodeling," to the replacement of specific segments of heart tissue, and ultimately to the creation of a whole heart. The repair or replacement of cardiac tissue often involves the development of tissue scaffolds or constructs and the subsequent assessment of their performance and functionality. For this, the design and/or selection of biomaterials, and cell types, scaffold fabrication, and in vitro characterizations are the first starting points, yet critical, to ensure success in subsequent implantation in vivo. This highlights the importance of scaffold fabrication and in vitro experiments/characterization with protocols for cardiac tissue engineering. Yet, a comprehensive and critical review of these has not been established and documented. As inspired, herein, the latest development and advances in scaffold fabrication and in vitro characterization for cardiac tissue engineering are critically reviewed, with focus on biomaterials, cell types, additive manufacturing techniques for scaffold fabrication, and common in vitro characterization techniques or methods. This article would be of benefit to the ones who are working on cardiac tissue engineering by providing insights into the scaffold fabrication and in vitro investigations.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it