<i>In vitro</i> cytotoxicity evaluation of a 50.8% NiTi single crystal
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To our knowledge, the biocompatibility of nickel-titanium (NiTi) single crystals has not been reported. Yet certain orientations of single crystals present several advantages over the polycrystalline form in terms of maximal strain, fatigue resistance, and temperature range of superelasticity. Therefore we tested the in vitro biocompatibility of 50.8% NiTi single crystals in the orientation <001> after four different heat treatments in a helium atmosphere followed by mechanical polishing. The study was performed on the material extracts after immersion of the specimens in cell culture medium (DMEM) for 7 days at 37 degrees C. Cytotoxicity studies were performed on L-929 mouse fibroblasts using the MTT assay. J-774 macrophages were used to assess the potential inflammatory effect of the extracts by IL1-beta and TNF-alpha dosages (sandwich ELISA method). Exposure of L-929 to material extracts did not affect cell viability. In addition, IL1-beta and TNF-alpha secretion was not stimulated after incubation with NiTi extracts compared to the negative controls. These results were predictable since atomic absorption spectroscopy did not detect nickel ions in the extracts with a resolution of 1 ppm. Within the limits of in vitro testing, our results demonstrate that the TiNi(50.8%) single crystals do not trigger a cytotoxic reaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it