ASTM international workshop on standards and measurements for tissue engineering scaffolds
Open accessAbstract
The “Workshop on Standards & Measurements for Tissue Engineering Scaffolds” was held on May 21, 2013 in Indianapolis, IN, and was sponsored by the ASTM International (ASTM). The purpose of the workshop was to identify the highest priority items for future standards work for scaffolds used in the development and manufacture of tissue engineered medical products (TEMPs). Eighteen speakers and 78 attendees met to assess current scaffold standards and to prioritize needs for future standards. A key finding was that the ASTM TEMPs subcommittees (F04.41‐46) have many active “guide” documents for educational purposes, but few standard “test methods” or “practices.” Overwhelmingly, the most clearly identified need was standards for measuring the structure of scaffolds, followed by standards for biological characterization, including in vitro testing, animal models and cell‐material interactions. The third most pressing need was to develop standards for assessing the mechanical properties of scaffolds. Additional needs included standards for assessing scaffold degradation, clinical outcomes with scaffolds, effects of sterilization on scaffolds, scaffold composition, and drug release from scaffolds. Discussions highlighted the need for additional scaffold reference materials and the need to use them for measurement traceability. Workshop participants emphasized the need to promote the use of standards in scaffold fabrication, characterization, and commercialization. Finally, participants noted that standards would be more broadly accepted if their impact in the TEMPs community could be quantified. Many scaffold standard needs have been identified and focus is turning to generating these standards to support the use of scaffolds in TEMPs. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 103B: 949–959, 2015.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Lack of a comprehensive measure to evaluate functionality of ECM-derived bioscaffolds made it arbitrary whether a biomaterial is well suited for clinical translation.
“The lack of a comprehensive measure to evaluate the functionality of ECM-derived bioscaffolds made it quite arbitrary whether a biomaterial is well suited for clinical translation or not [62].”
From Immunogenicity of decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds: a bottleneck in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (2023) · cites this paper as [62]
The paper’s ‘Standards for biological characterization’ section identifies a need for better measurements of scaffold function, and ‘Standards for measuring scaffold mechanics’ discusses decellularized ECM scaffolds. But it does not say that deciding whether an ECM-derived scaffold is suitable for clinical translation is arbitrary. In ‘Measurements provide information about a specimen’s state,’ it says measurements do not predict clinical efficacy; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · see citing works
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- [1]Plant AL Horowitz E Symposium on metrology and standards for cell signaling: impact on tissue engineering, National Institute for Standards and Technology, October 14–15, 2003 Tissue Eng 2005 11 985 990 16144434
- [2]Russell AJ Standardized experimental procedures in tissue engineering: cure or curse Tissue Eng 2005 11 vii vix 16259585
- [4]Messenger MP Tomlins PE Regenerative medicine: a snapshot of the current regulatory environment and standards Adv Healthcare Mater 2011 23 H10 H17 21433095
- [7]Tomlins P Salih V Chapter 6: Standards in cell and tissue engineering Standardisation in cell and tissue engineering 2013 Cambridge, UK Woodhead International Limited 107 123
- [8]Ioannidis JP Why most published research findings are false PLoS Med 2005 2 696 701 PMC1182327 16060722
- [9]Coombes KR Wang J Baggerly KA Microarrays: retracing steps Nat Med 2007 13 1276 1277 17987014
- [15]Plant AL Parker GC Translating stem cell research from the bench to the clinic: a need for better quality data Stem Cells Dev 2013 22 2457 2458 23597110
- [16]Wadman M NIH mulls rules for validating key results Nature 2013 500 14 16 23903729
- [29]Bruinink A Luginbuehl R Evaluation of biocompatibility using in vitro methods: interpretation and limitations Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2012 126 117 152 21989487
- [30]Lane JG Massie JB Ball ST Amiel ME Chen AC Bae WC Follow-up of osteochondral plug transfers in a goat model: a 6-month study Am J Sports Med 2004 32 1440 1450 15310569
- [31]Naylor JM Ko V Rougellis S Green N Hackett D Magrath A Is discharge knee range of motion a useful and relevant clinical indicator after total knee replacement? Part 2 J Eval Clin Pract 2012 18 652 658 21414108
- [32]Khanna G Singh JA Pomeroy DL Gioe TJ Comparison of patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes following total knee arthroplasty J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011 93 1 7 22012534
- [37]Viswanathan S Keating A Deans R Hematti P Prockop D Stroncek DF Soliciting strategies for developing cell-based reference materials to advance MSC research and clinical translation Stem Cells Dev 2014 in press PMC4027980 24422625
- [48]Scopus Elsevier Inc. 2014 Available from URL: http://www.scopus.com/
- [62]Jaklenec A Stamp A Deweerd E Sherwin A Langer R Progress in the tissue engineering and stem cell industry" are we there yet? Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2012 18 155 166 22220809
- [63]Williams D O'Donnell P The Xi'an Papers, World Summit on Regenerative Medicine 2013 Xi'an, China Book Conference Solution Co Available from URL: http://northheadcomms.com/cn/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/200131031-Xian-Papers-RM-summit.pdf
- [64]Yokoi M Hattori K Narikawa K Ohgushi H Tadokoro M Hoshi K Feasibility and limitations of the round robin test for assessment of in vitro chondrogenesis evaluation protocol in a tissue-engineered medical product J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2012 6 550 558 21809452
- [66]Bravery CA Carmen J Fong T Oprea W Hoogendoorn KH Woda J Potency assay development for cellular therapy products: an ISCT review of the requirements and experiences in the industry Cytotherapy 2013 15 9 19 23260082
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response
Aamodt, J. M., & Grainger, D. W. (2016) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.02.003 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Kasravi, M., Ahmadi, A., Babajani, A., Mazloomnejad, R., Hatamnejad, M. R., Shariatzadeh, S., Bahrami, S., & Niknejad, H. (2023) · Biomaterials Research · doi:10.1186/s40824-023-00348-z · Cited by 316 · see citing works
- Authors
- Simon, C. G., Yaszemski, M. J., Ratcliffe, A., Tomlins, P., Luginbuehl, R., & Tesk, J. A.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Synthasome (United States) (US)
- European Standards Consultant Egham UK
- RMS Foundation (CH)
- Biomedical Materials and Devices Consulting Highland Maryland
- Corresponding author
- Simon, Carl G.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-09-15
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 949-959
- ISSN
- 1552-4973 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4981
- PMC
- PMC4886474
- OpenAlex
- W1921595237
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Hydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications
- Keywords
- tissue engineering scaffolds, tissue engineered medical products, standards development, scaffold characterization, biological characterization, scaffold mechanical properties, scaffold degradation, sterilization effects, drug release, reference materials, measurement traceability, cell-material interactions, in vitro evaluation, animal models
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Congresses as Topic, Education, Humans, Tissue Engineering, Tissue Scaffolds
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review