MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988021528 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.17.2.028001

Porcine cortical bone ablation by ultrashort pulsed laser irradiation

2012· article· en· W1988021528 on OpenAlexafffund
Brent Emigh, Ran An, Eugene M. Hsu, T.H.R. Crawford, H. K. Haugen, Gregory R. Wohl, Joseph E. Hayward, Qiyin Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAblationMaterials scienceLaserFemtosecondIrradiationLaser ablationCortical boneFluencePulse (music)OpticsBiomedical engineeringPulse durationCollateral damageUltrashort pulseMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrashort pulsed lasers in bone ablation show promise for many orthopedic applications. To minimize collateral tissue damage and control the ablation process, the ablation threshold fluence must be well characterized. Using an amplified femtosecond laser (170 fs, 800 nm, 1 kHz), the ablation threshold on unaltered porcine cortical bone was measured using the D(2) method at multiple incident pulse numbers ranging from 25 to 1000 pulses per spot. The lowered threshold at greater pulse numbers indicated an incubation effect. Using a power law model, the incubation coefficient of unaltered porcine cortical bone was found to be 0.89 ± 0.03. Through extrapolation, the single-pulse ablation threshold was found to be 3.29 ± 0.14 J/cm(2).

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207