Porous nitinol vs. titanium intervertebral fusion implants: Computer tomography, radiological and histological study of osseointegration capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The functionality of a new metallic interbody fusion implant manufactured out of porous nitinol (PNT) was evaluated in sheep and compared to a conventional titanium intervertebral cage packed with autologous iliac crest bone. Both device types were implanted at two non‐contiguous intervertebral lumbar sites. The objective was to evaluate the osseointegration capacity after 3, 6 and 12 months of implantation in the presence of these two implant types subjected to the same mechanical loads. Two‐dimensional radiolology, computer tomography, and histology were used as techniques of parameters evaluation. The results indicated that PNT obtained a better intervertebral osseointegration capacity compared to the TiAlV cage. The functional difficulties of the titanium implant were related to its instability at the implantation site possibly due to a biofunctionality problem. The biocompatibility of both implants seemed however comparable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".