MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanical regulation of localized and appositional bone formation around bone-interfacing implants

2001· article· en· W2003017673 on OpenAlexaff
Craig A. Simmons, S. A. Meguid, Robert M. Pilliar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsseointegrationImplantInterfacingBone tissueBiomedical engineeringBone formationMaterials scienceAppositionIn vivoProcess (computing)DentistryAnatomyMedicineBiologySurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The local mechanical environment around bone-interfacing implants determines, in large part, whether bone formation leading to functional osseointegration will occur. Previous attempts to relate local peri-implant tissue strains to tissue formation have not accounted for implant surface geometry, which has been shown to influence early tissue healing in vivo. Furthermore, the process by which mechanically regulated peri-implant bone formation occurs has not been considered previously. In the current study, we used a unit cell approach and the finite element method to predict the local tissue strains around porous-surfaced and plasma-sprayed implants, and compared the predictions to patterns of bone formation reported in earlier in vivo experiments. Based on the finite element predictions, we determined that appositional bone formation occurred when the magnitudes of the strain components at the tissue-host bone interface were <8%. Localized, de novo bone formation occurred when the distortional tissue strains were less than approximately 3%. Based on these threshold tissue strains, we propose a mechanoregulatory model to relate local tissue strains to the process of peri-implant bone formation. The mechanoregulatory model is novel in that it predicts both appositional and localized bone formation and its predictions are dependent on implant surface geometry. The model provides initial criteria with which the osseointegration potential of bone-interfacing implants may be evaluated, particularly under conditions of immediate or early loading.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations57
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials ResearchSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207