MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406678729 · doi:10.6000/1929-5995.2025.14.01

Compositional Study of Polymer Blend PVA, Pectin, Sodium Alginate, and Gelatin Electrospun Nanofiber for Wound Dressing Application

2025· article· en· W4406678729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Song Jeng-Huang, Cynta Immanuela Lamandasa, Chuan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology Council
KeywordsGelatinElectrospinningMaterials sciencePectinNanofiberPolyvinyl alcoholChemical engineeringPolymerBiomaterialSodium alginateFiberChitosanPorosityComposite materialPolymer chemistrySodiumChemistryNanotechnologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrospun nanofibers are a biomaterial effective for wound healing due to their high surface area, tunable properties, and resemblance to the extracellular matrix. Nanofibers from the mixture of polymeric materials like gelatin, sodium alginate, pectin, and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) were investigated in this study. Pectin, sodium alginate, and gelatin are selected for their nature of being applied as tissue carriers, and they have the properties of being biocompatible and biodegradable while inducing cell proliferation. Unfortunately, these polymers have some drawbacks: most of them have poor mechanical strength or poor processing ability through electrospinning. To enhance these properties, PVA was incorporated. The result showed that an optimal blend ratio of 20% PVA, 40% pectin, 25% sodium alginate, and 15% gelatin yielded a fibrous structure with an average diameter of the fibers equal to 174.82 ± 13 nm, surface tension of 33.29 mN/m, and viscosity at 7,378 cP, which facilitated the uniform fiber formation and a porous structure for enhanced gas exchange and moisture retention, significantly aiding wound healing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer ScienceSame topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207