ArticleBiomedical materials (Bristol, England)2020
Quantitative evaluation of the in vivo biocompatibility and performance of freeze-cast tissue scaffolds.
Article in Biomedical materials (Bristol, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biofilm-Antagonist Ginger-Based 3D-Printable Photoresins for Complex Implant Designs Exhibiting Advanced Multifunctional Biomedical Applications.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
- Biocomposite Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Materials, Fabrication Techniques and Future Directions.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Tensile properties of freeze-cast collagen scaffolds: How processing conditions affect structure and performance in the dry and fully hydrated states.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2023Article
- Article
- Plant-Derived Nanocellulose as Structural and Mechanical Reinforcement of Freeze-Cast Chitosan Scaffolds for Biomedical Applications.Biomacromolecules · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative methods are little used for the in vivo assessment of tissue scaffolds to evaluate biocompatibility. To complement current histological techniques, we introduce as a measure of biocompatibility a straightforward, geometric analysis for the quantitative assessment of encapsulation thickness, cross-sectional area, and biomaterial shape. Advantages of this new technique are that it enables, on the one hand, a more complete and objective comparison of scaffolds with differing compositions, architectures, and mechanical properties, and, on the other, a more objective approach to their selection for a given application. In this contribution, we focus on freeze-cast polymeric scaffolds for tissue regeneration and their subcutaneous implantation in mice for biocompatibility testing. Initially, seven different scaffold types are screened. Of these, three are selected for systematic biocompatibility studies based on histopathological criteria: EDC-NHS-crosslinked bovine collagen, EDC-NHS-crosslinked bovine collagen-nanocellulose, and chitin. Geometric models developed to quantify scaffold size, ovalization, and encapsulation thickness are tested, evaluated, and found to be a powerful and objective metric for the in vivo assessment of biocompatibility and performance of tissue scaffolds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.