Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038291›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

A metamaterial scaffold beyond modulus limits: enhanced osteogenesis and angiogenesis of critical bone defects.

Yu Qin, Zehao Jing, Da Zou, Youhao Wang, Hongtao Yang, Kai Chen, Weishi Li, Peng Wen, Yufeng Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Electronic Chip-Mimetic Medical Implants for Controllable Sonothermal Treatments.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 3D-MOF-Lattice Inspired Programmable Metamaterials Based on Reconfigurable Polyhedral Origami.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yu Qin *School of Materials Science and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2128-9731
Zehao Jing *Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Da ZouDepartment of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Youhao WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hongtao YangSchool of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Kai ChenSchool of Materials Science and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Weishi LiDepartment of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. puh3liweishi@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9512-5436
Peng WenDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. wenpeng@tsinghua.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5656-1988
Yufeng ZhengSchool of Materials Science and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China. yfzheng@pku.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7402-9979

Funding

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2023M732339China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2024T170576National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 52301302National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 5231101024National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 82302684Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (Beijing Natural Science Foundation) L244002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metallic scaffolds have shown promise in regenerating critical bone defects. However, limitations persist in achieving a modulus below 100 MPa due to insufficient strength. Consequently, the osteogenic impact of lower modulus and greater bone tissue strain ( > 1%) remains unclear. Here, we introduce a metamaterial scaffold that decouples strength and modulus through two-stage deformation. The scaffold facilitates an effective modulus of only 13 MPa, ensuring adaptability during bone regeneration. Followed by a stiff stage, it provides the necessary strength for load-bearing requirements. In vivo, the scaffold induces > 2% callus strain, upregulating calcium channels and HIF-1α to enhance osteogenesis and angiogenesis. 4-week histomorphology reveals a 44% and 498% increase in new bone fraction versus classic scaffolds with 500 MPa and 13 MPa modulus, respectively. This design transcends traditional modulus-matching paradigms, prioritizing bone tissue strain requirements. Its tunable mechanical properties also present promising implications for advancing osteogenesis mechanisms and addressing clinical challenges.

Indexed as

Bone and BonesBone RegenerationNeovascularization, PhysiologicOsteogenesisTissue ScaffoldsAngiogenesisAnimalsElastic ModulusHypoxia-Inducible Factor 1, alpha SubunitMaleMiceTissue EngineeringHypoxia-Inducible Factor 1, alpha Subunit

Identifiers

PMID40038291
PMCPMC11880532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.