ArticleMacromolecular bioscience2026
Integrating Biological Architecture and Biomaterial Function: Exploring the Native Hydrogel Structure of Brown Seaweed.
Article in Macromolecular bioscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brown seaweed is a naturally occurring composite that integrates alginate and cellulose within a hierarchical, hydrated architecture analogous to engineered hydrogel systems. This study hypothesizes that leveraging the native structure-function relationships of brown seaweed enables the development of functional hydrogel biomaterials while minimizing synthetic and chemical processing. Strategies are investigated to exploit the intrinsic biological structure and composition of brown seaweed blades across multiple formats, including native and purified blade structures, as well as fibrillated blades reassembled into hydrogels and foam structures via 3D printing and freeze-drying. The resulting biomaterials are characterized in terms of structure, hydrogel stability, and liquid absorption capacity in different media. The effects of purification are compared with those of native materials. In addition, porosity, mechanical, rheological, and cytocompatibility properties of the fibrillated and reassembled structures are evaluated. By preserving the natural architecture and avoiding extensive fractionation, this approach demonstrates the potential to create resource-efficient biomaterials with high liquid absorption (∼3600%), high porosity (∼93%), and shape-memory behavior after compression. Cytocompatibility reaches ∼73% viability at 50% extract but decreases to ∼59% at full concentration, indicating a concentration-dependent biological response, underscoring the need to balance minimal processing with biological performance for biomedical applications.
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.