Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles (UC-MSC-EVs) have become an emerging strategy for treating various autoimmune and metabolic disorders, particularly diabetes. Delivery of UC-MSC-EVs is essential to ensure optimal efficacy of UC-MSC-EVs. To develop safe and superior EVs-based delivery strategies, we explored nuclear techniques including positron emission tomography (PET) to evaluate the delivery of UC-MSC-EVs in vivo. In this study, human UC-MSC-EVs were first successfully tagged with I-124 to permit PET determination. Intravenous (I.V.) and intra-arterial (I.A.) administration routes of [¹²⁴I]I-UC-MSC-EVs were compared and evaluated by in vivo PET-CT imaging and ex vivo biodistribution in a non-diabetic Lewis (LEW) rat model. For I.A. administration, [¹²⁴I]I-UC-MSC-EVs were directly infused into the pancreatic parenchyma via the celiac artery. PET imaging revealed that the predominant uptake occurred in the liver for both injection routes, and further imaging characterized clearance patterns of [¹²⁴I]I-UC-MSC-EVs. For biodistribution, the uptake (%ID/gram) in the spleen was significantly higher for I.V. administration compared to I.A. administration (1.95 ± 0.03 and 0.43 ± 0.07, respectively). Importantly, the pancreas displayed similar uptake levels between the two modalities (0.20 ± 0.06 for I.V. and 0.24 ± 0.03 for I.A.). Therefore, our initial data revealed that both routes had similar delivery efficiency for [¹²⁴I]I-UC-MSC-EVs except in the spleen and liver, considering that higher spleen uptake could enhance immunomodulatory application of UC-MSC-EVs. These findings could guide the development of safe and efficacious delivery strategies for UC-MSC-EVs in diabetes therapies, in which a minimally invasive I.V. approach would serve as a better delivery strategy. Further confirmation studies are ongoing.

Wound healing is a complex, multi-phase process requiring coordinated interactions among diverse cell types and molecular pathways to restore tissue integrity. Dysregulation can lead to chronic non-healing wounds or excessive scarring, posing major clinical and economic burdens. Single-omics interrogate individual molecular layers, such as the genome, transcriptome, proteome, metabolome, or epigenome, and have revealed key cellular players, but provide a limited view of dynamic wound repair. Single-cell technologies provide higher resolution to single-omic data by resolving cell-type and state-specific heterogeneity, enabling precise characterization of cellular populations. Multi-omics integrates multiple molecular layers at single-cell resolution, reconstructing regulatory networks, epigenetic landscapes, and cell–cell interactions underlying healing outcomes. Recent advances in single-cell and spatial multi-omics have revealed fibroblast subpopulations with distinct fibrotic or regenerative roles and immune–epithelial interactions critical for re-epithelialization. Integration with computational tools and artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reveal cellular interactions, predict healing outcomes, and guide development of personalized therapies. Despite technical and translational challenges, including data integration and cost, multi-omics are increasingly shaping the future of precision wound care. This review highlights how multi-omics is redefining understanding of wound biology and fibrosis and explores emerging applications such as smart biosensors and predictive models with potential to transform wound care.

Background: Effective team communication during interdisciplinary rounds (IDRs) is a hallmark of safe, efficient, patient‐centered care. However, there is limited understanding of optimal IDR structures and procedures.Objective: This study aimed to analyze direct observations of physician and nurse interactions during bedside IDR to identify behaviors associated with increased interprofessional communication.Designs, Settings and Participants: Trained observers audited general medicine ward rounds at an academic medical center using a standardized tool to record physician and nurse behavior and communication in 1007 patient encounters in October 2019 to March 2020.Results: There were significant differences in physician and nurse interaction time among physicians with different levels of training, with attendings demonstrating higher interaction time than residents (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 4.3 ± 3.7 min, p = .02) and interns or medical students (3.0 ± 3.2 min, p = .002). Attendings were more likely to initiate a conversation about nurse concerns (76.9%) compared to residents (67.9%) and interns or medical students (59.3%, p = .03). Early nurse participation in bedside visits was associated with increased physician and nurse interaction time (5.0 ± 4.6 vs. 1.9 ± 1.7 min, p < .001) and physician initiative to ask about nurse concerns (74.8% vs. 64.3%, p = .04). In addition, physician initiative to ask the nurse for concerns rather than waiting for the nurse to offer concerns without being prompted was associated with a subsequent conversation about those concerns (74.5% vs. 61.8%, p < .001) and the physician asking about patient or family concerns (94.2% vs. 88.4%, p = .01).Conclusions: Implementing IDR structures and procedures that promote attending physician involvement, physician initiative, and early nurse participation could optimize interdisciplinary communication and quality of care.

Tissue regeneration involves dynamic dialogue between and among different cells and their surrounding matrices. Bone regeneration is specifically governed by reciprocity between osteoblasts and osteoclasts within the bone microenvironment. Osteoclast‐directed resorption and osteoblast‐directed formation of bone are essential to bone remodeling, and the crosstalk between these cells is vital to curating a sequence of events that culminate in the creation of bone tissue. Among bone biomaterial strategies, many have investigated the use of different material cues to direct the development and activity of osteoblasts. However, less attention has been given to exploring features that similarly target osteoclast formation and activity, with even fewer strategies demonstrating or integrating biomaterial‐directed modulation of osteoblast‐osteoclast coupling. This review aims to describe various biomaterial cues demonstrated to influence osteoclastogenesis and osteoclast function, emphasizing those that enhance a material construct's ability to achieve bone healing and regeneration. Additionally discussed are approaches that influence the communication between osteoclasts and osteoblasts, particularly in a manner that takes advantage of their coupling. Deepening the understanding of how biomaterial cues may dictate osteoclast differentiation, function, and influence on the microenvironment may enable the realization of bone‐replacement interventions with enhanced integrative and regenerative capacities.