MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of Crystallographic Texture of Ti-6Al-4V Alloy on Cell Attachment and Proliferation

2005· article· en· W2001948075 on OpenAlexaff
Shahab Faghihi, M.R. Bateni, Fereshteh Azari, Jerzy A. Szpunar, Hojatollah Vali, Maryam Tabrizian

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceBiocompatibilityTitanium alloyTitaniumSubstrate (aquarium)AlloyAdhesionTexture (cosmology)Cell growthCell adhesionMetallurgyNanotechnologyCrystallographyComposite materialBiochemistryChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Owing to their lower modulus, great corrosion resistance and superior biocompatibility, titanium alloys are increasingly used as artificial joint replacements. However bone bonding capability of these materials needs to be improved. Many studies are currently conducted to improve the osseo-integration of titanium based implants. In the present study, the role of crystallographic texture of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V on bone bonding capability was investigated in vitro systems. X-ray diffraction analysis was used to determine preferred orientation in each substrate. These substrates were seeded with preosteoblast cells to examine cell attachment and proliferation. Attachment of cells was assessed by counting the number of adhered cells within 30-240 min. The proliferation rate of cells was measured between the 3rd-11th days of incubation. The results suggest that the substrate with (100) orientation shows better osteoblastic cell adhesion and proliferation rate than the (110).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207