Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41867896›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2026

In vitro evaluation of biocompatibility and degradation of human blood-derived scaffolds by seeding of mouse embryo fibroblasts.

Fariba Behnia-Willison, Pouria Aryan, Mojdeh Salehnia, Nadia Willison, Tran Nguyen, Nelson Tansu, Derek Abbott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Fariba Behnia-WillisonFBW Gynaecology Plus, Ashford, SA 5035, Australia.
Pouria AryanFBW Gynaecology Plus, Ashford, SA 5035, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2844-4706
Mojdeh SalehniaFBW Gynaecology Plus, Ashford, SA 5035, Australia.
Nadia WillisonFBW Gynaecology Plus, Ashford, SA 5035, Australia.
Tran NguyenFBW Gynaecology Plus, Ashford, SA 5035, Australia.
Nelson TansuDiscipline of Biomedical Engineering, School of EME, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Derek AbbottDiscipline of Biomedical Engineering, School of EME, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0945-2674

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study highlights the biocompatibility and biodegradability of a novel blood-derived scaffold for regenerative medicine. The scaffold supports cell integration, reduces immune rejection risks, and offers potential as a customizable solution for tissue repair and regeneration. As an autologous scaffold, it offers significant advantages, including reduced risk of immune rejection and improved integration with host tissues. These findings lay the foundation for further investigation of this scaffold as a safe and customizable solution for tissue repair and regeneration in clinical settings. The key objective was to evaluate the interaction of a novel blood-derived scaffold with mouse embryo fibroblasts for potential clinical use. Scaffolds prepared from human donor blood were seeded with fibroblasts. Cell survival and proliferation were assessed using the MTT assay, while morphological studies were conducted via light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and laser confocal scanning microscopy. Biodegradation was tested in the presence and absence of enzymes. We found that fibroblasts attached and penetrated the scaffold with a density of 1 cell per 10

Indexed as

and Medical Sciencesautologous scaffoldsbioengineered scaffoldsHealthregenerative medicineSubject: Biologicaltissue growth

Identifiers

PMID41867896
PMCPMC13001638

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.