Fibrous tissue ingrowth and attachment to porous tantalum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined the soft tissue attachment strength and extent of ingrowth to a porous tantalum biomaterial. Eight dorsal subcutaneous implants (in two dogs) were evaluated at 4, 8, and 16 weeks. Upon retrieval, all implants were surrounded completely by adherent soft tissue. Implants were harvested with a tissue flap on the cutaneous aspect and peel tested in a servo-hydraulic tensile test machine at a rate of 5 mm/min. Following testing, implants were dehydrated in a solution of basic fuschin, defatted, embedded in methylmethacrylate, and processed for thin-section histology. At 4, 8, and 16 weeks, the attachment strength to porous tantalum was 61, 71, and 89 g/mm respectively. Histologic analysis showed complete tissue ingrowth throughout the porous tantalum implant. Blood vessels were visible at the interface of and within the porous tantalum material. Tissue maturity and vascularity increased with time. The tissue attachment strength to porous tantalum was three- to six-fold greater than was reported in a similar study with porous beads. This study demonstrated that porous tantalum permits rapid ingrowth of vascularized soft tissue, and attains soft tissue attachment strengths greater than with porous beads.
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 | 0.000 | 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".