MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1831360785 · doi:10.1039/c5bm00163c

Composite biopolymers for bone regeneration enhancement in bony defects

2015· review· en· W1831360785 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomaterials Science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiocompositeBiomaterialScaffoldBiocompatibilityRegeneration (biology)Natural polymersBiomedical engineeringPolymerMaterials scienceBiocompatible materialNatural materialsComposite numberNanotechnologyPolymer scienceComposite materialMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the past century, various biomaterials have been used in the treatment of bone defects and fractures. Their role as potential substitutes for human bone grafts increases as donors become scarce. Metals, ceramics and polymers are all materials that confer different advantages to bone scaffold development. For instance, biocompatibility is a highly desirable property for which naturally-derived polymers are renowned. While generally applied separately, the use of biomaterials, in particular natural polymers, is likely to change, as biomaterial research moves towards mixing different types of materials in order to maximize their individual strengths. This review focuses on osteoconductive biocomposite scaffolds which are constructed around natural polymers and their performance at the in vitro/in vivo stages and in clinical trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it