ArticleBiomacromolecules2025
Assessing the Potential of Caprine Collagen Type I in the Development of Medical Devices.
Article in Biomacromolecules, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We isolated collagen I from caprine, porcine, and bovine skin and tendon tissues and assessed their purity and chemical properties. We fabricated non-cross-linked and cross-linked scaffolds from each collagen I preparation and assessed their physicochemical and biological properties. Purity and chemical analyses did not reveal any notable differences between the groups. Fibril diameter analysis revealed that the non-cross-linked and cross-linked porcine, caprine, and bovine preparations resulted in scaffolds with the thickest, intermediate, and thinnest fibrils. Among the non-cross-linked scaffolds, no significant differences were observed in stress at break between the groups and the caprine scaffolds had significantly lower and higher strain at break and Young's modulus than the bovine and the porcine scaffolds. Cross-linking significantly increased stress at break of all scaffolds, strain at break of the caprine scaffolds, and Young's modulus of the bovine and porcine scaffolds. Biological analysis did not reveal any noteworthy differences between the groups.
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.