Bone formation on two‐dimensional poly(<scp>DL</scp>‐lactide‐<i>co</i>‐glycolide) (PLGA) films and three‐dimensional PLGA tissue engineering scaffolds <i>in vitro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For some bone tissue engineering strategies, direct contact of newly synthesized bone with a scaffold is important for structural continuity and stability at the scaffold/bone interface. Thus, as the polymer degrades, the support function of the scaffold could be adopted by the developing bone structure. This study was designed to determine whether poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) with a comonomer ratio of 75:25 supports bone apposition in vitro. Osteogenic cells derived from rat bone marrow cells were cultured for 2 weeks on polymeric two-dimensional films and three-dimensional tissue engineering scaffolds. Bacteriological grade polystyrene and tissue culture polystyrene dishes served as negative and positive controls for interfacial bone deposition, respectively. The surfaces of the prepared substrates were characterized by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, dynamic water contact angle, scanning electron microscopy, and atomic force microscopy. After cell culture, the elaborated matrix was examined using scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy. The results show that poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) supports appositional bone growth on both two-dimensional films and three-dimensional scaffolds, including the formation of a mineralized cement line matrix. Furthermore, surface topographical features are not required for the adherence of the cement line matrix to the polymer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".