MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994997243 · doi:10.1039/c0sm01348j

Softening bioactive glass for bone regeneration: sol–gel hybrid materials

2011· article· en· W1994997243 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Matter · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBrittlenessMaterials scienceBioactive glassPolymerToughnessScaffoldCeramicComposite materialRegeneration (biology)Biomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a clinical need for materials that can stimulate repair of bone by kindling the body's own healing mechanisms. Bone can heal itself if the defect is small, but needs assistance if the defect is over a critical size. It is widely accepted that a temporary template (scaffold) is needed that can act as a guide and stimulus for vascularised bone growth. However, no material exists which fulfils all of the criteria for a bone regeneration scaffold. Although ceramics and glasses have been developed that have excellent biological properties, including pore structures that mimic porous bone, tailored degradation rates, the ability to bond to bone and stimulate new bone growth (bioactive), they are inherently brittle materials and cannot be used in applications that experience cyclic loads. These current bioactive materials must be softened to introduce toughness and plasticity. The obvious way to improve toughness is to make a composite material, using a bioactive ceramic or glass as the inorganic phase within a biodegradable polymer as the organic matrix. Unfortunately, the bioactive particles or fibres are initially covered and are only exposed as the polymer degrades, since the particles degrade at a slower rate. Cells will preferentially attach to these exposed bioactive particles, but further degradation of the polymer can cause inflammation as the particles are released. Commonly US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved polyesters degrade catastrophically by self-catalytic hydrolysis, causing the rapid loss of mechanical properties. The degradation can be made more congruent by careful polymer selection and manipulation or by developing specialised types of nanocomposites. This article focuses on the shift in emphasis from hard, brittle matter to durable, tough materials for bone scaffolds, specifically the development of a particular type of nanocomposite: inorganic/organic hybrids synthesised through the sol–gel process. Selected chemical and process challenges are described that must be overcome if they are to become a clinical success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.185 · 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