MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403457769 · doi:10.3390/gels10100662

Advancements in Hydrogels for Corneal Healing and Tissue Engineering

2024· review· en· W4403457769 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Y. Wu, Anne Faucher, Simon D. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueGels · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-healing hydrogelsTissue engineeringEconomic shortageNanotechnologyBiocompatibilityDrug deliveryCorneaComputer scienceMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringMedicineOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogels have garnered significant attention for their versatile applications across various fields, including biomedical engineering. This review delves into the fundamentals of hydrogels, exploring their definition, properties, and classification. Hydrogels, as three-dimensional networks of crosslinked polymers, possess tunable properties such as biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and hydrophilicity, making them ideal for medical applications. Uniquely, this article offers original insights into the application of hydrogels specifically for corneal tissue engineering, bridging a gap in current research. The review further examines the anatomical and functional complexities of the cornea, highlighting the challenges associated with corneal pathologies and the current reliance on donor corneas for transplantation. Considering the global shortage of donor corneas, this review discusses the potential of hydrogel-based materials in corneal tissue engineering. Emphasis is placed on the synthesis processes, including physical and chemical crosslinking, and the integration of bioactive molecules. Stimuli-responsive hydrogels, which react to environmental triggers, are identified as promising tools for drug delivery and tissue repair. Additionally, clinical applications of hydrogels in corneal pathologies are explored, showcasing their efficacy in various trials. Finally, the review addresses the challenges of regulatory approval and the need for further research to fully realize the potential of hydrogels in corneal tissue engineering, offering a promising outlook for future developments in this field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGelsSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207