ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative in vitro and in vivo assessment of three experimental extracellular matrix meshes for soft tissue remodeling.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of standardized cross-species evaluation frameworks is urgently needed for absorbable extracellular matrix (ECM) meshes, due to significant variations in safety and efficacy across tissue sources. This study establishes a multi-dimensional assessment system to quantify material-specific bio-functional correlations. Three ECM meshes-human acellular dermis (HAD), porcine acellular dermis (PAD), and porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS)-were systematically characterized using integrated in vitro and in vivo analyses. Assessments included physicochemical properties (e.g., degradation kinetics via collagenase digestion), immunogenic residues (α-Gal epitopes and DNA quantification), and biocompatibility. In vivo performance was evaluated using rabbit subcutaneous (for degradation and immune response) and rat abdominal defect models (for macrophage polarization: CD206⁺/CD86⁺ ratio and collagen deposition). HAD exhibited superior structural stability (82.3% ± 1.2% residual mass after 7-day collagenase digestion), whereas SIS degraded most rapidly (10.5% ± 0.42%; p < 0.01 vs PAD) but provoked severe foreign body reactions (2.3-fold higher vs HAD at 13 weeks, p = 0.017). Notably, HAD uniquely promoted sustained M2-dominant macrophage polarization (CD206⁺/CD86⁺ ratio = 2.1 vs SIS = 0.7), which reduced inflammation and enhanced collagen remodeling (p < 0.05 vs SIS). Serum metabolomic analysis indicated that ECM mesh implantation induced a reprogramming of host amino acid metabolism, marked by a notable acceleration in L-methionine metabolism. The proposed integrated evaluation framework successfully identifies material-specific correlations among degradation behavior, immune response, and metabolic regulation, providing critical benchmarks for the rational design of immunomodulatory ECM meshes.
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.