ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2025
Semi-quantitative scoring criteria based on multiple staining methods combined with machine learning to evaluate residual nuclei in decellularized matrix.
Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in cell-derived extracellular matrix for 3D tumor modelling.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Integrating graph convolutional networks with large language models for structured biomedical material knowledge representation.Regenerative biomaterials · 2025Article
- AI-driven biomaterial design: an intelligent closed loop from reverse design to biological response.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection of residual nuclei in decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) biomaterials is critical for ensuring their quality and biocompatibility. However, current evaluation methods have limitations in addressing impurity interference and providing intelligent analysis. In this study, we utilized four staining techniques-hematoxylin-eosin staining, acetocarmine staining, the Feulgen reaction and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining-to detect residual nuclei in dECM biomaterials. Each staining method was quantitatively evaluated across multiple parameters, including area, perimeter and grayscale values, to establish a semi-quantitative scoring system for residual nuclei. These quantitative data were further employed as learning indicators in machine learning models designed to automatically identify residual nuclei. The experimental results demonstrated that no single staining method alone could accurately differentiate between nuclei and impurities. In this study, a semi-quantitative scoring table was developed. With this table, the accuracy of determining whether a single suspicious point is a cell nucleus has reached over 98%. By combining four staining methods, false positives caused by impurity contamination were eliminated. The automatic recognition model trained based on nuclear parameter features reached the optimal index of the model after several iterations of training in 172 epochs. The trained artificial intelligence model achieved a recognition accuracy of over 90% for detecting residual nuclei. The use of multidimensional parameters, integrated with machine learning, significantly improved the accuracy of identifying nuclear residues in dECM slices. This approach provides a more reliable and objective method for evaluating dECM biomaterials, while also increasing detection efficiency.
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.