Notice bibliographique
Résumé
On December 20th of this year, we lost one of the greatest innovators in dental science. Although Dr. Per-Ingvar Branemark was not a dentist but an orthopedic surgeon, his contribution to dental implantology is never to be forgotten. As is well known, while performing orthopedic experiments on rabbit legs in 1952, Dr. Branemark serendipitously discovered that titanium fuses well with bone. What made it possible for him to grasp this new concept, which he later named was his thoroughness in considering every factor in his studies, which most researchers could have easily overlooked under the same circumstances. Nevertheless, Dr. Branemark's ongoing research on osseointegration was not well accepted at first because the mainstream of medical knowledge worked with the assumption that the human body is inhospitable to any kind of foreign material and that it often reacts with inflammation. Not surprisingly, the grant applications for his studies on bone-anchored implants were frequently rejected, which still did not stop him from pursuing his passion. At last, he succeeded in winning funding from the United States National Institutes of Health, and Branemark implants have served as the basis for the field of dental implantology ever since they first expanded the application of osseointegration to dentistry in the 1970s. At the Toronto Osseointegration Conference in 1982, the new technology of machined titanium implants was introduced to all dental communities. After that, more extensive application in clinical settings was possible. Even though Dr. Branemark was not a dentist, he still deserves the greatest respect from researchers in every biomedical field including dentistry, given his tremendous accomplishments of exploring the therapeutic effectiveness of implants and presenting the remarkable treatment modality to dental science. Titanium implants, which were the products of his impressive research performance, boosted by the discovery of osseointegration, have become widely used in dentistry, as well as in general and veterinary medicine. Although we must say farewell to you, Dr. Branemark, we know that you and your legacy will always stay with us.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».