MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964065739 · doi:10.2741/3293

Bone cells-biomaterials interactions

2009· review· en· W1964065739 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie-Ève Marquis

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiomedical engineeringBone tissueTissue engineeringPopulationChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the aging population, the incidence of bone defects due to fractures, tumors and infection will increase. Therefore, bone replacement will become an ever bigger and more costly problem. The current standard for bone replacement is autograft, because these transplants are osteoconductive and osteoinductive. However, harvesting an autograft requires additional surgery at the donor site that is related to high level of morbidity. In addition, the quantity of bone tissue that can be harvested is limited. These limitations have necessitated the pursuit of alternatives using biomaterials. The control of bone tissue cell adhesion to biomaterials is an important requirement for the successful incorporation of implants or the colonization of scaffolds for tissue repair. Controlling cells-biomaterials interactions appears of prime importance to influence subsequent biological processes such as cell proliferation and differentiation. Therefore, interactions of cells with biomaterials have been widely studied especially on two-dimensional systems. This review focuses on these interactions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in bioscienceSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207