ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2019
Differences in osteogenic induction of human mesenchymal stem cells between a tailored 3D hybrid scaffold and a 2D standard culture.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D-Printed Polysaccharide Scaffolds with NIR-Triggered Activity for Diabetic Wound Healing.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Development of Novel Pt(IV)-Carbohydrate Derivatives as Targeted Anticancer Agents against Osteosarcoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Translating Material Science into Bone Regenerative Medicine Applications: State-of-The Art Methods and Protocols.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Searching for new molecular markers for cells obtained from abdominal aortic aneurysm.Journal of applied genetics · 2021Article
- Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Undergoing Osteogenesis in 2D and 3D Culture Conditions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many medical-related scientific discoveries arise from trial-error patterns where the processes involved must be refined and modified continuously before any product could be able to reach the final costumers. One of the elements affecting negatively these processes is the inaccuracy of two-dimension (2D) standard culture systems, carried over in plastic plates or similar, in replicating complex environments and patterns. Consequently, animal tests are required to validate every in vitro finding, at the expenses of more funds and ethical issues. A possible solution relies in the implementation of three-dimension (3D) culture systems as a fitting gear between the 2D tests and in vivo tests, aiming to reduce the negative in vivo outcomes. These 3D structures are depending from the comprehension of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and the ability to replicate it in vitro. In this article a comparison of efficacies between these two culture systems was taken as subject, human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) was utilized and a hybrid scaffold made by a blend of chitosan, gelatin and biomineralized gelatin was used for the 3D culture system.
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.