Intelligent design of nerve guidance conduits: An artificial intelligence‐driven fluid structure interaction study on modelling and optimization of nerve growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nerve guidance conduits (NGCs) have been shown to be effective in promoting nerve regeneration in a variety of clinical applications, including nerve defects resulting from a trauma or surgery. By providing a conducive environment for nerve growth, NGCs can help to restore function in nerve‐damaged patients. Challenges include limited repair length, difficulty replicating natural nerve, and rapid substance degradation affecting neurotrophic factor delivery. Considering these issues with mass transfer and fluid structure interaction (FSI) emphasizes the need for enhancing nerve regeneration efficiency. To facilitate nerve growth and deliver appropriate amount of growth factors, these conduits need to be designed with specific topological, mechanical, and biological properties. Additionally, considerations must be given to functional mass transfer FSI design. An intelligent NGC design is proposed as an evaluation‐optimization and AI‐based method. It is found that design parameters significantly impact the physical properties being optimized, including hydraulic pressure, porosity, diffusivity, water absorption, and maximum stress. The mathematical surrogate model obtained from data‐based modelling is used for artificial intelligence (AI) optimization algorithms, differential evolution (DE), and non‐dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA‐II). It is revealed that both DE and NSGA algorithms generate nearly identical solutions, ensuring the robustness of ML optimization. Our results show that NGC with the thickness of 750 μm results in more than 170% augmentation of porosity. Moreover, at a constant ovality, increasing the channel thickness results in more than 39.2% augmentation of the maximum stress. The accurate forecasting of physical characteristics on NGC regarding nerve growth factors enables a hopeful outlook for the future clinical treatment of nerve injuries and advanced tissue engineering.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".