MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985326778 · doi:10.1080/00914037.2014.886222

Bone Repair Stimulation in Rat Mandible by New Chitosan Silver(I) Complexes

2014· article· en· W1985326778 on OpenAlexaff
Fatima M. Ibrahim, Yousry Mahmoud Elhawary, Ian S. Butler, Sahar I. Mostafa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Polymeric Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryDeprotonationLigand (biochemistry)ChelationCrystallographyChitosanStereochemistryInorganic chemistryBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two new chitosan silver(I) complexes, [Ag(2CS)(H2O)(NO3)] and [Ag(2CS)(ahmp)(H2O)] (CS = chitosan, Hahmp = 4-amino-6-hydroxy-2-mercaptopyrimidine) were synthesized and characterized on the basis of elemental analysis, spectral (FT-IR and solid-state 13C-NMR), morphological (SEM, matrix analysis, XRD, and XRPE), and thermal measurements. Chitosan behaves as a neutral ligand, coordinates Ag(I) through half of amino nitrogen centers, with the pendant glucose amine hydroxy functionality playing no role in coordination, while 4-amino-6-hydroxy-2-mercaptopyrimidine functions as mononegative bidentate, chelating through the deprotonated cyclic nitrogen and thione sulfur atoms. [Ag(2CS)(ahmp)(H2O)] displays a significant potential bone regenerator in rat mandible. Forty male rats were divided into two groups: bone defect (control) and bone defect with [Ag(2CS)(ahmp)(H2O)] (treated). The bone defects were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and Masson's trichrome for histological analysis. The treated group shows faster and well organized bone formation in the defect in comparison to the control group which shows little new bone trabeculae and wide marrow cavities.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Polymeric MaterialsSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207