Comparative <i>In Vivo</i> Biocompatibility of Cellulose-Derived and Synthetic Meshes in Subcutaneous Transplantation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing interest in cellulose-derived materials in biomedical research, there remains a significant gap in comprehensive in vivo analyses of cellulosic materials obtained from various sources and processing methods. To explore durable alternatives to synthetic medical meshes, we evaluated the in vivo biocompatibility of bacterial nanocellulose, regenerated cellulose, and cellulose nanofibrils in a subcutaneous transplantation model, alongside incumbent polypropylene and polydioxanone. Notably, this study demonstrates the in vivo biocompatibility of regenerated cellulose obtained through alkali dissolution and subsequent regeneration. All cellulose-derived implants triggered the expected foreign body response in the host tissue, characterized predominantly by macrophages and foreign body giant cells. Porous materials promoted cell ingrowth and biointegration. Our results highlight the potential of bacterial nanocellulose and regenerated cellulose as safe alternatives to commercial polypropylene meshes. However, the in vivo fragmentation observed for cellulose nanofibril meshes suggests the need for measures to optimize their processing and preparation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".