MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406325322 · doi:10.1039/d4bm00941j

Biomaterial-based strategies for primary human corneal endothelial cells for therapeutic applications: from cell expansion to transplantable carrier

2025· review· en· W4406325322 on OpenAlexafffund
Myagmartsend Enkhbat, Jodhbir S. Mehta, Gary S. L. Peh, Evelyn K. F. Yim

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomaterials Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsBiomaterialPrimary (astronomy)Cell biologyChemistryCellEndothelial stem cellBiophysicsBiologyBiochemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

for use in cell therapy. This review summarizes the recent advancements in the expansion of HCECs using biomaterials. Two principal biomaterial-based approaches, including extracellular matrix (ECM) coating and functionalized synthetic polymers, have been investigated to create an optimal microenvironment for the expansion and maintenance of corneal endothelial cells (CECs). This review highlights the challenges and opportunities in expanding primary HCECs using biomaterials. It emphasizes the importance of optimizing biomaterial properties, cell culture conditions, and the roles of biophysical cues to achieve efficient expansion and functional maintenance of CECs. Biomaterial-based strategies hold significant promise for expanding primary HCECs and improving the outcomes of CEC transplantation. The integration of biomaterials as cell culture substrates and transplantable carriers offers a comprehensive approach to address the limitations associated with current corneal tissue engineering techniques.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomaterials ScienceSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207